JUDGMENT : M.S. Shah, J. By this report, the Official Liquidator seeks clarification/direction from this court on the question whether sale of plant and machinery by the Official Liquidator amounts to manufacture and whether central excise is leviable on the sale of plant and machinery and movables sold by the Official Liquidator. 2. The clarification /direction is sought in view of the minutes of the meeting of the sale committee held on 13.8.01 in the matter of Qualitron components Ltd. (in liquidation). Some of the intending purchasers who had offered to purchase the plant and machinery of the company in liquidation want a clarification on the aforesaid issue and they want deletion of the term relating to undertaking for payment of excise duty as and when levied. 3. At the hearing of this report, the learned Official Liquidator states that the intending purchasers are sometimes in a dilemma whether excise duty will be demanded or not because if duty is leviable then the intending purchasers would be inclined to offer less price and if excise duty is not leviable, the intending purchasers may like to pay the full market value of the plant and machinery being sold. The Official Liquidator further states that such a dilemma is created because on the one hand in the judgment of CEGAT Mumbai Bench in VVN Manufacturing & Invests Ltd. v Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad, (1999) 112 ELT 887 the view taken is that dismantling, clearing, rousing, reassembling and painting including the replacement of inner seal, bearing JV seals, etc., of rollers do not amount to manufacture within the meaning of section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 but, on the other hand, as per CEGAT Delhi Bench decision dated 24.12.1999 (pages 28 to 34 of the report) generating waste and scrap from capital goods attracts levy of excise duty. 4. It is nobody's case that excise department has levied/demanded any excise duty from the Official Liquidator or from any purchaser of plant and machinery of any company in liquidation. In this view of the matter, the question appears to be clearly hypothetical. 5. 4. It is nobody's case that excise department has levied/demanded any excise duty from the Official Liquidator or from any purchaser of plant and machinery of any company in liquidation. In this view of the matter, the question appears to be clearly hypothetical. 5. It is to be noted that what the Official Liquidator sells is the plant and machinery of the company in liquidation, since such plant and machinery is not required in the course of winding up and, therefore, the assets are being sold to convert them into money value so that ultimately the sale proceeds can be distributed amongst the creditors and workers. What the Official Liquidator sells is not scrap or waste as such. Since such plant and machinery remain idle for a year or years, they may not fetch the maximum possible price which the plant and machinery in excellent running condition may fetch. But that does not mean that the Official Liquidator generates any scrap or waste from the capital assets of the company in liquidation. Hence the entire doubt is misconceived and there is no occasion for entertaining any such doubt when the Official Liquidator is merely selling the plant and machinery of the company in liquidation. 6. The report is accordingly disposed of.