9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 37X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ose of meeting his contractual obligation of restricting burning loss to 90%. Further the goods cleared by the Respondent is accounted by the recipient of the material as required under Central Excise Rules - demand on account of Component B is not maintainable - intention to evade payment of duty has not been clearly broughtout in the order-in-original - it was a bona fide mistake and there is no case to increase the penalty - Appeal filed by Revenue rejected. - E/1126/2009 - 574/2011-SM(BR)(PB), - Dated:- 1-9-2011 - Shri Mathew John, J. REPRESENTED BY : Shri R.K. Gupta, SDR, for the Appellant. Shri Saurabh Yadav, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order]. - The Respondent is a manufacturer of Pipes and Tubes of Copper and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly procuring raw material for activity under (ii) and (iii) in para 1 above to make good the excess burning loss in their factory and meet the agreement with suppliers to return finished goods weighing 90% of the weight of the raw material supplied. Revenue demanded duty on the quantity of goods manufactured from raw material which they would have procured for making good the excess burning loss in their factory. The argument canvassed is that this is activity is of the type at (i) above and they should have paid duty on such finished products. 5. There was also another matter relating Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 49,776 which was taken on the basis of photocopy of invoices in the name of some other person. 6. A Show cause notice was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... loss on goods cleared under category (ii) of para 1 (Item A in Table-II) is meaningless because the Respondent had already paid duty on all clearances of this type and hence there is no shot levy. In the case of goods supplied using raw material procured by the respondent to make good the excess burning loss cleared under category (iii) of para 1, (Item B in Table -II) also he found the demand unsustainable because it is the responsibility of the supplier of the raw material who receives such finished goods to account the goods properly and hence there was no short levy. Thus he set aside the entire demand on both the counts. He also set aside the penalty imposed on the President of the Company. Demand for Rs. 49776 was upheld and penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ters relating to component A of the demand is rejected. 15. In the matter of component B (in TABLE-II) it is to be noted that there is no ban on any job-worker using his own inputs as are required for completing the manufacturing process. In many manufacturing processes the job-worker has to use some minor inputs. In this case it happens that the inputs used by the job-worker is identical to the goods supplied by the Principal manufacturer. But that fact cannot bring in any additional levy. In this case extent of such raw material is less than 3%. This is not a case of any mala fide scheme by which the Respondent is trying to avoid any payment of duty. This is only for the purpose of meeting his contractual obligation of restricting burni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
