ORDER
K.K. Usha, J. (President)
1. When the application for stay came up for hearing it is agreed that the appeal itself can be disposed of. We, therefore, waive pre-deposit and proceed to dispose of the appeal itself.
2. The only issue raised in this appeal is whether scrap originated as a result of broken mould was exempted from payment of duty at the hands of a manufacturer of iron and steel products working under Section 3A. It is the contention of the appellant that scrap originated as a result of broken mould is not liable for any excise duty as there is no manufacturing process involved. In support of the above contention, the appellant placed reliance on a decision of this Tribunal in Hindalco Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Allahabad – 2002 (144) E.L.T. 339. The above decision of the Tribunal has taken a view that waste and scrap arising from the manufacture or mechanical working of iron or steel is liable to duty; but not the metal scrap arising from dismantling of buildings, repair of machinery, etc.
3. The above ratio is applicable in the present case. We, therefore, hold that scrap arising as a result of wear and tear of ingot mould in a unit working under Section 3A does not invite any excise duty. We find no merit in the demand sustained by the Commissioner. The order impugned is set aside and appeal stands allowed.