9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (9) TMI 492X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent. [Order]. After dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 18,210.61 (Rupees eighteen thousand two hundred ten and paise sixty-one) against the first applicant/appellant company, M/s. ERI-Tech Limited, along with the imposition of an identical amount of penalty under the provisions of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and also the penalty of Rs. 10,000.0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arisen at the job worker s factory, would be returned to them and in case of failure they would be liable to pay duty. 3. The appellants contention duly represented by Sri K.L. Binani, Director of the appellant company, is that the dross arisen in the job worker s factory for the period from November, 1995 to 2000, was on account of invisible loss to the extent of 1%. There is no actual dross ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is in respect of invisible loss having occurred at job worker s factory. Such an invisible loss cannot be returned back to the principal manufacturer s factory. In any case, I find that even if the aluminium dross has arisen at the job worker s factory no duty can be demanded in respect of the same inasmuch as such aluminium dross has been held to be non-excisable item by the Hon ble Supreme Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
