9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 120X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SS Forged articles. The contention of the appellant is that in their manufacturing activity of Forged items. In addition to their own manufacturing activities, the appellants were also carrying out job work of Forging for other customers wherein they were supplying MS Ingots/Billets under ordinary challans on which no Cenvat credit was availed by the appellants. The appellants used the basic raw materials such as steel ingots, blooms, billets, round and the same were duly cut on hacksaw and band saw machines as per required sizes. They are then fed into the furnace and heated to the required temperature and thereafter they are repeatedly hammered and forged to the required size and shape. During the process of heating, hammering and forging ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this Tribunal. This Tribunal remanded the matter-back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to consider the contention of the appellant that there was a burning loss and if burning loss is accepted, the shortage of final products are required to be explained specifically. The learned Commissioner was also directed to hear the appellant on the ground of limitation. On the remand proceedings the learned Commissioner (Appeals) held that the appellant is entitled for burning loss to the extent of 2%. Therefore, he confirmed the duty demand of remaining shortage of goods. Aggrieved by the order, the appellant is before me. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the allegation against the appellant is that they have removed the goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tted that in the process of manufacturing there is burning loss and sought from the Revenue how to record burning loss in their records but no reply was given by the Revenue therefore extended period of limitation is not invokable in the facts of the case. 4. On the other hand, the learned A.R. opposes the contentions of the learned Counsel and submitted that in their statutory records the appellant has not recorded true picture of the inputs and finished goods. He relied upon the decision of Rutvi Steel & Alloys v. Commissioner - 2013 (293) E.L.T. A95 (Guj.) and submits that the appellant is liable to pay duty along with interest. 5. Heard the parties and considered their submissions. 6. In this case the issue before me i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also observed that the appellant has explained that their activities, involves process of heating, hammering and forging certain scaling appears on the top skin of the MS Block and claimed burning loss but the department has not taken any steps to verify whether there is burning loss as claimed by the appellant but merely alleged clandestine removal of the goods. The show cause notice has been issued by invoking extended period of limitation and admitted that these is burning loss. In these circumstances, the allegation of clandestine removal of goods is not sustainable. Consequently, the extended period of limitation is also not invokable. 6.2 In conclusion the appellant succeeds on merits as well as on limitation. Accordingly, I se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
