9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 1031X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... required to return 98 Kg of processed material out of every 100 Kg of copper wire bars received from BHEL. The appellant were operating under Notification No. 214/86-C.E. and accordingly while BHEL were availing Cenvat credit in respect of copper wire bars, the appellant were returning the rectangular copper bars of specified dimension to BHEL without payment of duty and rectangular copper bars were being used by BHEL in manufacture of finished goods which were being cleared by BHEL on payment of duty. However, since in conversion of copper wire bars into rectangular copper bars, in addition of 2% burning loss, other off cut waste to the extent of 16% above also arises and since the appellant were not equipped for reprocessing this was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt was imposed u/s 11AC, penalty of Rs. 5,000/- was imposed on the Appellant under Rule 173Q. 2. On appeal being filed to Commissioner (Appeals), the above order of the Asstt. Commissioner was upheld vide order-in-appeal dated 10-12-2004. Against this appeal of the Commissioner (Appeals), this appeal has been filed. 3. Heard both the sides. 4. Sh. Z.U. Alvi, Advocate, the learned counsel for the appellant pleaded that in the situation of the case, the Apex Court's judgment in the case of Ujagar Prints (supra), is not applicable, that considering that the 16% copper wire bars procured from outside were substitute for BHEL supplied copper wire bars, issued under Rule 57F(4) and Notification No. 214/86-C.E., the clearances of the intermedi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in respect of the self procured copper wire bars was not required to be reversed and hence there is no question of demand of any duty. 4. Shri M.S. Negi, the learned departmental representative, defended the impugned order by reiterating findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and pleaded that there is no infirmity in the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order. 5. We have considered the submissions from both the sides and peruse the records. The appellant in terms of their contract with BHEL for processing of copper wire bars into rectangular bars of specified size and dimensions on job work basis, were required to return 98% of the raw-material in process form, as in terms of the contract the burning loss of only 2% was permitted. There is no di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ured from outside have to be treated as owned by BHEL and since Cenvat credit in respect of the same has been availed by the appellant, they would be liable to pay duty on the rectangular bars manufactured out of the same, and this duty would be payable on the value determined in terms of the Apex Court's judgment in the Ujagar Prints (supra) i.e. on the cost of wire bars procured from outside plus job charges. In our view the Larger Bench Judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd. (supra) cited by the learned counsel of the appellant is not applicable to the facts of this case. Thus the duty has been correctly demanded by the Department in respect of the rectangular copper wire bars manufactured by appellant out o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
