9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (11) TMI 1733 - AT - Central ExciseShortage of stock - Copper - loss of 2.5% in the process of manufacture - Held that - Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI v. Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd., 1995 (4) TMI 62 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA , held that certain quantity of raw material may be lost during the process of manufacturing of final product and exact mathematical equation between the quantity of raw material purchased and the raw material found in the finished product is not possible and should not be looked for - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues: Central Excise Duty - Shortage of raw material - Duty confirmation - Appeal against adjudication order
In this case, the respondent, engaged in manufacturing wire and cables, faced allegations of shortage of copper, which was allegedly used in the production of finished products without duty payment. The Central Excise officers conducted a stock verification, leading to the confirmation of duty, interest, and penalty by the adjudicating authority. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) later set aside this order. Upon hearing both sides and examining the records, it was found that the respondent claimed 2.5% losses, with the Revenue arguing that this claim was an afterthought. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that while the Department allowed for input loss during the drawing process at the job worker's premises, the respondent claimed losses in various other processes within their own factory, which was not disputed by the Revenue in their appeal. The judgment referenced a Supreme Court case, UOI v. Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd., where it was established that a certain amount of raw material loss during manufacturing is natural, and an exact correlation between purchased raw material and that found in the final product should not be expected. Considering the above discussions, the impugned order was upheld without any perceived flaws, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal. The decision was pronounced in open court, thereby concluding the matter.
|
