2018 (3) TMI 495 - AT - Central Excise

Liability of duty - scrap which gets generated at the job worker s premises while processing rough castings for the appellant - Held that - the provisions of Rule 4 (5) (a) do not stipulate return or accountal of scrap generated at the job worker end. This much has been admitted even by the jurisdictional original authority in his findings with reference to denial of cenvat credit in another proceedings. For clearances made under Rule 4 (5) (a) due compliance has been reported. Return of waste and scrap or payment of duty on such waste and scrap is not part of such compliance. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Central Excise duty liability on scrap generated at job worker's premises.

Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing C.I castings, availed cenvat credit and cleared goods to a job worker for processing. The dispute arose regarding the correct Central Excise duty liability on the scrap generated at the job worker's premises during processing. The Revenue claimed the duty payment value was incorrect. The appellant and the job worker were related parties, leading to proceedings for demanding differential Central Excise duty on the scrap. The appellant contended that paying duty on the scrap, generated at the job worker's premises, was an error, and they paid it based on 110% of the scrap generation cost. However, Rule 4 (5) (a) did not mandate the return or accounting of scrap generated at the job worker's end. The original authority acknowledged this in a previous order and cited a Bombay High Court decision stating that the principal manufacturer is not liable for duty on scrap not returned by the job worker. The Tribunal also referenced a case supporting this stance.

The Tribunal analyzed the facts and found that the appellant had complied with Rule 4 (5) (a) by returning the machined castings within the specified time. The responsibility for Central Excise duty on the scrap generated at the job worker's premises rested with the job worker, not the appellant. The Tribunal emphasized that there was no legal basis to tax the appellant for waste and scrap they did not manufacture. Compliance under Rule 4 (5) (a) did not include returning waste and scrap or paying duty on it. Citing a previous Tribunal decision, the Tribunal concluded that the duty liability could not be imposed on the appellant, even though the job worker was a related person. Therefore, the impugned order was found to lack legal merit and was set aside, allowing the appeal with any consequential relief as per law.

In conclusion, the judgment clarified the Central Excise duty liability concerning scrap generated at the job worker's premises during processing, emphasizing the legal obligations under Rule 4 (5) (a) and the distinction in duty liability between the principal manufacturer and the job worker.