9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 494X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /MI/2005, dated 10-5-2005 E/CO/365/05 Shetty Garments Pvt. Ltd. -Do- E/1505/04 Gupta Trading Co. No. SDK(268-269)9-10/MV/2004, dated 31-1-2004 E/1660/04 Revenue -Do- E/CO/460/04 Gupta Trading Co. -Do- E/3892/05 Gupta Trading Co. No. BR(466-467)124-125/MV/ 2005, dated 5-9-2005 E/3893/05 Shri Mukesh S. Gupta -Do- In Revenue's appeal, cross-objection has also been filed by M/s. Shetty Garments Pvt. Ltd and M/s. Gupta Trading Co. Since the issue involved in all the appeals is same, all appeals are being taken up together for disposal. 2. M/s. Shetty Garments Pvt. Ltd. (SGP) and M/s. Gupta Trading Co. (GTC) are job workers of M/s. Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd. (BDMC) and both are operating under Rule 13(1)(b) of Central Excise Rules, 1944/Rule 19 of Central Excise Rules, 2001 and they are manufacturing made-up articles. Necessary B-16 Bond for movement of fabrics has been executed jointly by M/s. BDMC, M/s. SGP and M/s. GTC before clearance of the goods and after getting the necessary permission from the jurisdictional Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise to work under Rule 13(1)(b)/19, the goods were cleared for job work under AR-3 form from M/s. BDM ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pearing for the Revenue submitted that M/s. SGP and M/s. GTC are job workers for M/s. BDMC for the purpose of manufacturing of made-up articles of textiles for export. M/s. BDMC have cleared the fabrics under Bond and AR-3 movement as prescribed under Rule 13 of the Central Excise Rules/Rule 19 of Central Excise Rules, 2001. Both M/s. SGP and GTC have manufactured all made-up articles as per Notification No. 43/2001, dated 26-6-2001 and 47/94, dated 22-9-1994. For the said purposes, the manufacturer is required to file declaration and also supposed to declare the input-output ratio and follow the procedure under Chapter X procedure or Central Excise (Removal of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2001. M/s. SGP and GTC have cleared the fabrics in the guise of fents, rags and chindies as alleged in the show cause notice. These clearances were over and above the quantity of waste permissible as per the declaration filed by them. He submitted that it was not proper on part of the Commissioner (Appeals) to set aside the demand on merit as this is the fact that the goods have been received by them without payment of duty and they are supposed to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orks out to less than 2% and difference between approved consumption ratio and exact waste is insignificant. Normally 5% waste is allowed in textile industry. Therefore, duty cannot be demanded from them at the rate of fresh fabrics on the fents, rags and chindies arising during the course of manufacture. He also drew our attention to the Notification No. 47/94, dated 22-9-1994 and 43/2001, dated 20-6-2001 in which it is mentioned that any waste arising from the processing of materials may be removed on payment of duty as if such waste is manufactured in the factory of the manufacturer. He therefore submitted that though the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the appeal for the period prior to 1-7-2001 the duty is not chargeable w.e.f. 1-7-2001 also as the waste generated is within the permissible limit and as per Notification, duty can be paid by them as waste. He, therefore, submitted that all the Revenue's appeals need to be dismissed and their appeals against the Commissioner (Appeals) order are required to be allowed. 5.1 In case of one appeal against Order No. BR(466-467)124-125/MV/2005, dated 5-9-2005 in which the Order-in-Original is upheld, he submitted that the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11. Thereafter another Notification No. 43/2001, dated 26-6-2001 was issued under Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules, 2001 for procurement of excisable goods without payment of duty for the purpose of manufacture or processing of export product. For availing this concession, provisions of Central Excise (Removal of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2001 are to be followed. In both the Notifications, the manufacturer is required to declare input-output ratio to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or Dy. Commissioner of Central Excise. We note that in both the Notifications No. 47/94, dated 22-9-94 and No. 43/2001, dated 26-6-2001, there was specific provisions with regard to the waste generated during the process of excisable goods. For the sake of convenience, these provisions are reproduced below :- "Notification No. 47/94, dated 22-9-1994 : 5. Any waste arising from the processing of materials may :- (a) be removed on payment of duty as if such waste is manufactured in the factory of the manufacturer; (b) be removed without payment of duty, where it belongs to such class or category of waste as the Central G ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dant. As regards the execution of bond, movement of goods under AR-3 procedure, maintenance of account of goods received, submission of quarterly RT-11 return etc., the manufacturer is required to follow the Chapter X procedure or procedure under the Central Excise (Removal of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2001. We are, therefore, of the view that the duty on the waste generated in form of fents, rags and chindies is payable by M/s. SGP and GTC in terms of these Notifications No. 47/94 and 43/2001 only. 11. In Orders-in-Appeal No. SDK(2330-2331)12-13/M-I/2004, dated 28-1-2004 and SDK(268-269)9-10/MV/2004, dated 31-1-2004, the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that prior to 1-7-2001 the demand would be hit by time-bar as M/s. SGP and GTC had kept the department informed about their clearances through RT-12 return and price declaration of the waste fabrics. We do not find any infirmity in these findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, two appeals filed by the Revenue against these orders on the ground of limitation are rejected. Similarly, we do not find any infirmity in the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) in settin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
