ORDER
Gowri Shankar, Member (T)
1. The appellant is absent and unrepresented despite notice but requests decision on merits.
2. The appellant is a manufacturer of electric cables, which are insulated with polyvinyl chloride. The notice to show cause dated 24-9-1992 issued to the appellant by the jurisdictional Superintendent proposal recovery of Modvat credit taken by the appellant of the duty paid on so much quantity of polyvinyl chloride compound which was contained in scrap cleared by it without payment of duty under Notifications 53/88 and 14/90 as amended. Penalty was also proposed.
3. The appellant took the stand that the scrap was in the nature of waste or by product and Sub-rule (1) of Rule 57D permitted credit to be taken on inputs used in the manufacture of final products notwithstanding that some quantity of waste or refuse or by product cleared by it without payment of duty. The Assistant Collector did not accept this contention and said that the scrap was a final product and hence Rule 57C will not apply. He confirmed the demand for duty. The Collector (Appeals) confirmed this view. Hence this appeal.
4. It is difficult to follow the reasoning that the Collector (Appeals) adopts, when she says that since the polyvinyl chloride scrap is arising from the processing of polyvinyl chloride compound, it cannot take into account the waste or by product. By applying this reasoning, we have to hold that no scrap or by product arises in the manufacture of any commodity. Virtually all commodities are manufactured by processing the inputs or raw materials. The fact that the goods are described as polyvinyl chloride scrap, and were classifiable under Heading 3915.30 which is waste and scrap of waste settled this beyond doubt. The provisions of Rule 57C therefore would squarely apply to the facts of this case, and will have to be held that the credit could not be denied because the scrap was cleared on payment of duty.
5. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned order set aside.