9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (7) TMI 447X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inputs such as Aluminium Ingots. It was clearing the Aluminium Ingots under Rule 57F(4) to the job workers for manufacture of Aluminium Castings. The goods removed under 57F(4) challans were received back after the job work was completed. The weight of the castings thus received did not tally with the weight of the Aluminium ingots sent under Rule 57F(4) because the appellant did not receive the waste and scrap from the job worker. The allegation of the department is that when inputs are sent under Rule 57F(4) a manufacturer is supposed to receive back any waste and scrap which arises in the manufacture of goods in a job workers hands. Since no evidence has been put-forth by the appellant company that such waste and scrap has suffered duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inputs are sent out for job work, an assessee is expected to get back the inputs was well as any resultant product that comes out as otherwise the resultant product, escapes duty even when the assessee has taken credit. It is for this reason the Rule provides that the waste and scrap that arises out of the input should also be either brought back are removed on payment of duty. Investigation revealed that the appellant company failed to produce evidence to establish that duty was discharged on dross, ash and residues. Since the appellants have not disclosed the fact that they were not receiving back the so called waste and scrap, larger period of limitation was invoked and duty on such dross ash and residues was demanded. We observe that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (internal audit) of the appellant company. We find no justification in imposing a penalty on some one who in charge of internal audit of assessee's company. A penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- is imposed on the operational Manager as he is a person who is involved in day-to-day transactions of the appellant company. We hold that a penalty is imposable on him, we reduce the penalty to Rs. 1000/- as he was only an employee of the appellant company. Interest liability as ordered by the Commissioner is upheld. The appeals are disposed of in the following terms : (a) Demand for duty upheld. (b) Penalty under Section 11AC reduced to Rs. 3 lakhs. (c) Penalty under Rule 173Q set aside. (d) Penalty under Rule 209A on the Vice-President and Senior Manage ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
