9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 212X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... k to various job workers for the purposes of machining/fettling, bending, or carrying out any other operation necessary for the manufacture of final product. The finished goods are removed from the premises of the job workers and directly sent to the customers in terms of the permission granted to them under Rule 4(6) of the CENVAT credit Rules, 2004. The aforesaid permission was granted subject to undertaking given by the appellant that the waste and scrap if generated at the job workers end would either be brought back or removed on payment of Central Excise duty from the premises of the job workers. During the scrutiny of records of the appellant's factory, it was noticed that they had failed to pay excise duty on waste and scrap generat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner under Rule 4(6) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, the appellant had given an undertaking that they would discharge the duty liability on waste and scrap generated at the job workers' premises in case they failed to bring back such waste and scrap. Therefore, in terms of the undertaking given, the appellant are liable to discharge duty liability on waste and scrap generated at the job workers' premises. The ld. lower appellate authority accepted the plea of the department and set aside the order of the lower adjudicating authority and held that the appellants are liable to pay excise duty on the waste and scrap generated at the job workers' premises in terms of undertaking given by them under Rule 4 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1.08.2009. In view of this, the proceedings initiated by the adjudicating authority as well as the first appellate authority in the impugned order are not required at all. Therefore, impugned order be set aside. 5. Heard the ld. counsel. 6. In this case I find that two show-cause notices were issued to the appellant on 18.1.2008 and 2.5.2008 for demand of duty on clearance of waste and scrap generated at the end of the job worker during the impugned period. Proceedings against both show-cause notices were conducted by the adjudicating authority and the adjudicating authority dropped the show notices on 12.12.2008. The said order was challenged by the revenue before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide order dated 21.08.2009 passed the foll ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the orders passed by this Tribunal and they are following their own law which results in unnecessary litigation before this Tribunal. In this case, till disposal of the appeal against the order dated 21.08.2009 by this Tribunal, the litigation could have been avoided but both the lower authorities chose to continue unnecessary litigation. The action of both the lower authorities is not appreciable at all.
8. With these observations, I find that neither re-adjudication nor any order was required to be passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) till the final disposal of the appeal by the Tribunal. Therefore, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief.
(Dictated in Court) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
