2011 (9) TMI 139 - AT - Central Excise

Removal of goods from the premises of Job worker - Permission under rule 4(6) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR) - condition of return of waste and scrap - Held that - In Fag Engineering case (2011 -TMI - 202740 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD), it was held that no duty liability can be fastened upon the principal manufacturer in case of non-receipt of goods in terms of rule 4(5)(a) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and the only consequence would be reversal of credit availed on the inputs in case goods on which credit has been taken and which has been allowed to be removed for job work is not brought back within the time period stipulated. The same legal position was held in the case of Rocket Engineering (2005 -TMI - 54305 - CESTAT, MUMBAI) and (2006 -TMI - 3721 - HIGH COURT BOMBAY). In the light of these judicial pronouncements, it has to be held that the principal manufacturer who has supplied the inputs as such or partially processed, to job workers for further processing cannot be fastened with the duty liability on the waste and scrap generated at the job workers premises and said liability falls on the job workers who have actually manufactured the waste and scrap. In case, the department wanted to recover duty on the waste and scrap, then the demand should have been raised on the job workers as has been held in Alucast Foundries.

Summary

Issues:
1. Liability of principal manufacturer for excise duty on waste and scrap generated at job workers' premises.
2. Interpretation of Rule 4(6) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
3. Applicability of judicial precedents in similar cases.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute regarding the liability of a principal manufacturer for excise duty on waste and scrap generated at job workers' premises. The appellant, a manufacturer of excisable goods, sent cast articles for job work to various job workers. The appellant failed to pay excise duty on waste and scrap generated at the job workers' end, leading to show-cause notices proposing recovery of duty, interest, and penalty. The lower adjudicating authority dropped the proceedings based on previous tribunal judgments and circulars. However, the department appealed, arguing that the appellant, under an undertaking, was liable to pay duty on waste and scrap. The lower appellate authority upheld the department's plea, holding the appellant liable. The appellant challenged this decision.

2. The appellant contended that they were not obligated to pay duty on waste and scrap as the job workers were the manufacturers of such materials. They relied on the permission granted to them, which stated that the job workers were liable to pay service tax on job charges. The appellant argued that the duty liability on waste and scrap did not legally bind them, as per trade notices and circulars issued by the Commissionerate. The appellant also cited tribunal and high court judgments supporting the position that duty liability on waste and scrap fell on the job workers, not the principal manufacturer.

3. The appellate tribunal analyzed Rule 4(6) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, which allows the Asst. Commissioner to impose conditions for payment of duty. The tribunal noted that the liability to pay excise duty on waste and scrap was governed by Central Excise Rules, not CENVAT Credit Rules. Relying on judicial precedents, including Fag Engineering and Rocket Engineering cases, the tribunal concluded that duty liability on waste and scrap at job workers' premises rested with the job workers, not the principal manufacturer. The tribunal set aside the lower appellate authority's decision, allowing the appeal with consequential relief.

In conclusion, the tribunal clarified the legal position regarding duty liability on waste and scrap generated at job workers' premises, emphasizing that such liability falls on the job workers as manufacturers, not on the principal manufacturer. The decision was based on a thorough analysis of relevant rules, judicial precedents, and the specific circumstances of the case, providing clarity on the legal obligations of the parties involved.