ORDER
P.G. Chacko, Member (J)
1. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of “paper tubes” and “cones” falling under Chapter 48 of the Schedule to the CETA 1985. During the course of such manufacture, waste paper emerged, which was cleared without payment of duty during the period 16-3-1995 to 31-10-1995. The department raised a demand of duty on such waste and scrap of paper holding that the goods were classifiable under Heading 47.02 which attracted duty @ 20% ad valorem w.e.f. 16-3-1995 consequent upon the rescission of Notification No. 38/90-C.E., dated 20-3-1990. The original authority and the first appellate authority sustained the demand of duty, holding that waste and scrap of paper or paperboard was a marketable commodity classifiable under Heading 47.02 and chargeable to duty. Hence the present appeals.
2. Ld. Chartered Accountant for the appellants has relied on the Tribunal’s decision in Wimco Ltd. v. CCE 2002 (147) E.L.T. 920 (Tri-DeL), wherein waste and scrap of paper and paperboard were held not to be dutiable. Ld. SDR has reiterated the findings of the authorities below.
3. After giving careful consideration to the submissions, we find that, on a similar set of facts, this Tribunal held that small pieces of paper and paper-board, generated in the process of manufacture of match boxes, were not to be treated as any product different from the original paper and paperboard used as input for the manufacture. It was held that charging of duty on such small pieces of paper and paperboard, otherwise called “waste and scrap”, was tantamount to charging of duty on the same product twice. Accordingly, it was held that no duty was leviable on the waste and scrap of paper or paperboard, generated during the manufacture of match boxes. The Tribunal also held against classifying such waste and scrap under SH 4702.90. In the absence of contra decision on the issue, we are inclined to follow the above decision and to hold that the waste and scrap of paper and paperboard cleared by the assessee during the period of dispute were not dutiable. The impugned order is set aside and these appeals are allowed.
(Operative part of the order was pronounced in open Court on 12-9-2005)