Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2012 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (11) TMI 479 - AT - Central ExciseDemand of duty - Job work - exemption under Notification No. 214/86 - For the job work, MS plates were sent by M/s. Larsen & Toubro to the Appellant - they had not sent back the scrap as per provision of Rule 5(9) of Rule 4 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 Held that - After doing the job work, the finished goods were returned to M/s. Larsen & Toubro. Certain amount of waste was generated in the course of job work. Such goods were sold by M/s. L&T to the Appellants itself. On such sale, L&T had paid excise duty - no revenue loss in the matter and it is only a procedural mistake - order is set aside and appeal is allowed.
Issues:
1. Applicability of Rule 5(9) of Rule 4 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 2. Demand of duty due to failure to send back scrap. 3. Revenue loss and procedural mistake. 4. Interpretation of exemption under Notification No. 214/86. 5. Sale of waste generated during job work. 6. Justification for not sending back goods. Analysis: The case involved the Appellants engaged in job work for M/s. Larsen & Toubro Ltd under an exemption notification. The issue arose when waste generated during job work was sold by M/s. Larsen & Toubro to the Appellants themselves, leading to a notice from Revenue for not sending back the scrap as required by Rule 5(9) of Rule 4 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, and demanding duty. The Revenue acknowledged that there was no revenue loss, attributing the issue to a procedural mistake. During the proceedings, the advocate for the Appellants argued that since the goods were in their factory and M/s. Larsen & Toubro sold the waste to them, there was no obligation to return the goods. The Tribunal considered the arguments and concluded that there was no evidence of revenue loss, noting that the appropriate duty had been paid by M/s. Larsen & Toubro. The Tribunal found no merit in the lower authority's reasoning to support the demand for duty. As a result, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, emphasizing that the demand was unjustified due to the absence of revenue loss and the payment of appropriate duty by M/s. Larsen & Toubro. The judgment highlighted the importance of considering the specific circumstances and the legal provisions in determining the liability for duty, ultimately ruling in favor of the Appellants based on the lack of merit in the Revenue's arguments.
|