9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (9) TMI 1245 - AT - Central ExciseLiability of appellant, principal manufacturer, to pay Excise Duty on waste and scrap arising at the job worker s factory and cleared by the job 2 worker without payment of duty for the disputed period - raw materials sent to job workers for conversion in terms of N/N. 214/86--CE dated 25.03.1986 - HELD THAT - The Tribunal in M/S. GREAVES COTTON LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF GST CENTRAL EXCISE CHENNAI 2024 (6) TMI 1398 - CESTAT CHENNAI had considered the very same issue in the appellant s own case, where it was held that ' The said issue stands decided by the Tribunal in the appellant s own case in M/S. GREAVES COTTON LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF GST CENTRAL EXCISE CHENNAI 2024 (5) TMI 1470 - CESTAT CHENNAI has held that 'the appellant is not the manufacturer of the waste and scrap and therefore, there is no liability on the appellant to pay the duty on the waste and scrap manufactured at the job worker s end. Further, the provision of Rule 4(5)(a) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 nowhere states that the waste and scrap generated at the job worker s end makes the principal manufacturer liable to payment of duty on such waste and scrap.' The impugned order cannot sustain. The same is set aside. The appeal is allowed.
Issues:
Whether the appellant, as the principal manufacturer, is liable to pay Central Excise duty on waste and scrap generated at the job worker's factory and cleared without payment of duty. Analysis: The judgment revolves around the issue of whether the appellant, a principal manufacturer, is obligated to pay Central Excise duty on waste and scrap produced at the job worker's factory and cleared without duty payment. The Tribunal, in Final Order No. 40770-40771/2024, had previously considered the same matter in the appellant's case and ruled in favor of the appellant based on earlier decisions. The Tribunal referred to various past orders involving the same appellant, such as Final Order No. 41315/2017, Final Order No. 41710/2017, and others, to support its decision. In Final Order No. 40226 to 40228/2023, the Tribunal reiterated that the principal manufacturer is not liable to pay duty on waste and scrap generated at the job worker's end. The appellant's counsel argued that Rule 4(5)(a) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 does not impose duty on the principal manufacturer for waste and scrap produced at the job worker's facility. This argument was supported by previous Final Orders in the appellant's favor. The Tribunal also highlighted that the decision in Final Order No. 41307/2017 was based on Rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2001, while the impugned orders invoked Rule 4(5)(a) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. It was noted that Rule 4(5)(a) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 does not make the principal manufacturer liable for duty on waste and scrap generated at the job worker's end. This position was reaffirmed in Final Order No. 40621/2019, further strengthening the appellant's case. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the legal issue had been settled in previous orders, and hence, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed with consequential benefits as per law. The judgment emphasized the consistent application of legal principles across various orders involving the same appellant, leading to a favorable outcome for the appellant in this case.
|
