2012 (10) TMI 37 - AT - Central Excise

Demand of duty and penalty - assessee get raw material under job-work challan from other Central Excise Assessee manufacture finished products and clear the goods under exemption Notification 214/86-C.E. alleged that Respondent had an agreement with suppliers of raw material to give back finished goods with weight equal to 90% of the weight of raw material supplied. The 10% is taken as burning loss or process loss Held that - Inputs used by the job-worker is identical to the goods supplied by the Principal manufacturer. But that fact cannot bring in any additional levy - This is only for the purpose of meeting his contractual obligation of restricting burning loss to 90%. Further the goods cleared by the Respondent is accounted by the recipient of the material as required under Central Excise Rules - demand on account of Component B is not maintainable - intention to evade payment of duty has not been clearly broughtout in the order-in-original - it was a bona fide mistake and there is no case to increase the penalty - Appeal filed by Revenue rejected.

Issues Involved:
1. Dispute regarding excess burning loss in manufacturing process.
2. Cenvat credit taken on invoices in the name of others.
3. Duty demand on finished goods manufactured using raw material.
4. Penalty imposition on company president and authorized signatory.
5. Appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) decision.
6. New issues raised by Revenue in the second appeal.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Dispute regarding excess burning loss in manufacturing process
The dispute revolved around the excess burning loss in the manufacturing process of the respondent. The Revenue alleged that the respondent was procuring raw material to compensate for the burning loss and demanded duty on the goods manufactured from such raw material. The Commissioner (Appeals) found the demand unsustainable as the duty had already been paid on all clearances, and there was no short levy. The demand was set aside for both categories of manufacturing activities.

Issue 2: Cenvat credit taken on invoices in the name of others
A Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 49,776 was taken on invoices in the name of another person. The penalty imposed on the company for this was reduced to Rs. 2,000 as it was considered a bona fide mistake rather than an intentional evasion of duty.

Issue 3: Duty demand on finished goods manufactured using raw material
The Revenue demanded duty on finished goods manufactured using raw material procured by the respondent to make up for the excess burning loss. The Commissioner (Appeals) found the demand unsustainable for both categories of manufacturing activities, as there was no short levy and the responsibility lay with the raw material supplier.

Issue 4: Penalty imposition on company president and authorized signatory
A penalty of Rs. 10,000 was imposed on the president and authorized signatory of the company under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. However, the penalty was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals).

Issue 5: Appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) decision
The Revenue filed an appeal against the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to set aside the demands and penalties. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, upholding the Commissioner (Appeals) decision on all counts.

Issue 6: New issues raised by Revenue in the second appeal
In the second appeal, the Revenue raised new issues regarding the valuation method for goods cleared under one category and the eligibility for exemption under a specific notification for goods cleared under another category. The Tribunal rejected these new arguments, stating that they were not raised earlier and could not be considered at this stage.

In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal on all counts, upholding the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding duty demands, penalties, and other issues raised during the proceedings.

← Previous Next →