2016 (4) TMI 281 - AT - Central Excise

Excise duty on the waste and scrap - job work in the premises of manufacturer of intermediate goods i.e. job worker - appellant being principle supplier and manufacturer of final product - Held that - Appellant has supplied input to the job worker and at the job worker s end during the process of job work waste and scrap arises. Since the job worker is manufacturer, excise duty liability, if any arises it will be on job worker and not on principle manufacturer i.e. appellant who supplied inputs. As decided in assessee s own case 2011 (9) TMI 139 - CESTAT, MUMBAI . - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues Involved: Liability of excise duty on waste and scrap arising during job work at the premises of a job worker.

In the present case, the main issue revolves around determining whether the appellant, as the principal supplier and manufacturer of the final product, is responsible for paying excise duty on the waste and scrap generated during job work conducted at the job worker's premises. The appellant's representative argued that since the job worker is the manufacturer where the waste and scrap arise, any excise duty liability should fall on the job worker and not on the principal manufacturer who supplied the inputs. The representative highlighted previous tribunal decisions, including one from 2013 and another involving Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune I vs. DGP Hinoday Industries Ltd in 2015, to support their argument. Based on the precedent set by the earlier judgments in the appellant's own case, the tribunal, led by Member Ramesh Nair, decided to set aside the challenged order and allowed the appellant's appeal. The tribunal's decision was influenced by the consistent application of the legal principles established in previous cases, leading to a favorable outcome for the appellant in this matter.

This judgment showcases the importance of legal precedents and the application of established principles in deciding excise duty liability issues related to waste and scrap generated during job work processes. It emphasizes the significance of past tribunal decisions in shaping current rulings and ensuring consistency in legal interpretations. The appellant's success in this case highlights the effectiveness of citing relevant precedents and legal arguments to support their position and ultimately secure a favorable outcome. Overall, the judgment underscores the role of legal expertise, precedent analysis, and consistent application of legal principles in resolving complex excise duty matters within the realm of manufacturing and job work operations.