1999 (9) TMI 902 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Duty liability on copper bars and rods manufactured from waste and scrap of copper.
2. Interpretation of Notification No. 174/84-C.E. and Notification No. 175/84-C.E.
3. Whether the appellants are liable to pay duty on copper bars and rods.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The case involves a dispute regarding the duty liability on copper bars and rods manufactured from waste and scrap of copper obtained by the appellants. The Revenue charged duty on the copper bars and rods under Notification No. 175/84-C.E., while the appellants contended that they are not liable to pay duty as they only manufactured copper ingots covered by Notification No. 174/84-C.E. The Department argued that the appellants are the manufacturers of the copper bars and rods as per their agreement with M/s. Hindustan Cables, despite the job worker re-rolling the ingots. The Commissioner also denied the benefit of the Notification citing the non-duty paid nature of the waste and scrap.

Issue 2:
The Tribunal considered the duty-paid character of the waste and scrap, highlighting the Apex Court's judgment in C.C.E. v. Usha Martin, which deemed goods cleared under exemption on nil duty gate passes as having paid appropriate duty. Consequently, the condition regarding the duty-paid character of the waste and scrap was deemed satisfied, contrary to the adjudicating officer's view. This interpretation influenced the decision on the duty liability of the copper bars and rods.

Issue 3:
Regarding the demand of duty on copper bars and rods from the appellants, the Tribunal found that the demand could not be upheld against them. It was noted that there was no evidence of the job worker acting under the appellants' supervision, direction, or control, nor being a mere dummy of the appellant firm. Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Ujjagar Prints, it was established that in the absence of such allegations, the job worker is liable to pay duty as the manufacturer of the copper bars and rods. Consequently, the demand of duty against the appellants was deemed unsustainable, leading to the setting aside of the impugned Order and allowing the appeal with consequential reliefs to the appellants.