M.V.RAVINDRAN,MEMBER - (1.) THESE appeals are filed against the Orders -in -Appeal Nos. 417 to 418/2002/Commr(A)/Raj, dated 25 -10 -2002 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The issues involved in both the cases are identical and the same are dealt with by a common order.
(2.) HEARD both sides.
(3.) THE appellants manufacture motor vehicle parts falling under 8708.00 for M/s. Mahindra and Mahindra and certain quantities of such parts are rejected by the buyer namely, M/s. Mahindra and Mahindra on quality consideration. Such rejected items are specifically recorded in their RG -1 register by the appellants as reject goods of the respective description. They sought classification for such rejects as scrap under Chapter 72 of CETA, 2002. The department does not question the classification of reject/scrap items as claimed by the appellant but seeks to enhance the value of these items at par with the prime items sold to M/s. Mahindra and Mahindra. These items are claimed as scrap as per the statements which are relied upon. The learned Advocate for the appellants submits that there has been no suppression of any relevant facts to the excise authorities and therefore, the demand raised by the department, beyond the normal period of limitation is hit by time bar. He also contests that the valuation adopted for scrap cannot be at par with the prime quality motor vehicle parts. He also relies on the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in an identical case vide Order No. 480/00, dated 16 -8 -2000 issued on 28 -8 -2000 relating to Sahyog Industry, wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the appeal on merits as well as limitation.;