2010 (8) TMI 381 - AT - Central Excise

Sub-rule (3)(b) of rule 6 - Paying duty and required to reverse an amount equal to 10 per cent of the value of the wast goods at the time of clearance - The respondent s own case, for the earlier period, on the identical issue, this Tribunal vide Order No. 260/10-CE, dated 3-5-2010 had decided the issue in favour of the respondent holding that the said waste generated during the manufacturing process is not marketable - Accordingly, the issue is no more res integra and has been settled by this Tribunal in the respondent s own case -Hence not find any merit in the revenue s appeal and the same is rejected.

Summary

Issues: Revenue's appeal against duty demand, interest, and penalty confirmed by Commissioner (Appeals) regarding clearance of waste generated during manufacturing process.

Analysis:
The case involved the manufacturing of biscuits and cakes by the respondents, who also undertook job work for another company. During the manufacturing process, waste containing cenvatable inputs, which had availed Cenvat credit, was generated and cleared to the other company. The revenue alleged that the respondents treated the waste as exempted and did not pay duty on it, contrary to the provisions of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. A show-cause notice was issued, and duty demand along with interest and penalty was confirmed. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) dropped the demand, leading the revenue to file an appeal.

The Revenue, represented by the Learned DR, reiterated the adjudication order and requested the impugned order to be set aside. On the other hand, Shri R. Krishnan, Advocate, appeared for the respondent without Vakalatnama, but his presence was not officially recorded. The Tribunal proceeded with the case for final disposal, considering no official representation from the respondent. Upon examining the records, the Tribunal noted that in the respondent's earlier case, the Tribunal had already decided in favor of the respondent on the identical issue. The Tribunal's previous order held that the waste generated during the manufacturing process was not marketable. Therefore, the issue was considered settled, as per the Tribunal's previous ruling in the respondent's own case. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the revenue's appeal and rejected the same.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal against the duty demand, interest, and penalty confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the clearance of waste generated during the manufacturing process. The decision was based on the precedent set in the respondent's earlier case, where the Tribunal had ruled that the waste in question was not marketable, thus resolving the issue in favor of the respondent.