9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1691X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has not produced any Scientific Literature or certificate from a Chartered Engineer to support their claim that in the process of conversion of Caustic Potash Flakes into Potash Pallets there is a loss of 10% as claimed by the appellant. In the absence of any such documentary evidence, there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the first appellate authority and the same is required to be upheld in so far as denial of CENVAT credit and interest is concerned. Appellant was sending the inputs through challans under Rule 4 (5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, therefore the activities undertaken by the appellant and job-workers of the appellant and the processes being carried out with yield were known to the department. - it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ker M/s. Vinayak Chemicals and the appellant to the extent that there will be a processing loss of 10%. With respect to imposition of penalty, it was argued by the Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that the inputs were cleared for job work under challans and everything was within the knowledge of the department, therefore, penalty cannot be imposed under Rule 15(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 3. Shri Lalatendu Patra (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that appellant is sending Caustic Potash Flakes to two job workers for conversion in Potash Pallets. It was argued that in the case of job worker M/s. Atlas Pallet Industries, 100% yield is sent back whereas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Vadodara (supra), passed by this Bench wherein it is held that 2% waste and scrap generated at the job worker s premises will not result into denial of CENVAT credit. It is observed from the case law relied upon by the appellant that there was no dispute regarding generation of waste and scrap in that case before CESTAT. In the present case, the processing loss of 10% is claimed by the appellant with respect to only M/s. Vinayak Chemicals when no such processing loss is taking place in the case of another job worker M/s. Atlas Pallet Industries for the same process. This aspect has been discussed by the first appellate authority in Para 29 of the Order-in-Appeal dated 15.9.2012. The appellant has not produced any Scientific Literature or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
