9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 261X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods. Both the lower authorities have come to this conclusion after considering all the records of the case before them. Revenue's claim that benefit of Notification 214/86-CE cannot be made applicable to ‘waste' is incorrect as the said Notification applies for the goods manufactured by a job-worker on job-work basis and to be used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products on which duty of excise is leviable whether in whole or in part. In the case in hand, it is undisputed that the plastic waste and scrap which gets generated during the manufacture of final products are sent to job-worker and received back as granules which are further consumed in the manufacture of final products. On the face of such factual matrix, in o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scrap generated during the course of manufacture, which the respondent cleared for job-work under Notification 214/86 without payment of duty and received back the said waste and scrap, converted as semi-finished products. A show cause notice was issued to the respondent asking them to show cause as to why the duty liability be not demanded from them, as provisions of Notification 214/86 would apply only to the inputs and semi finished goods which can be sent for job-work. Respondent contested the matter before the adjudicating authority. The adjudicating authority, after following due process of law dropped the proceedings initiated by the show cause notice. Aggrieved by such an order, revenue preferred an appeal before the first appellate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dgment of the larger bench in the case of Wyeth Laboratories (supra) in incorrectly applied; 3.5. That the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Narmada Plastics (P) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise 2004 (178) ELT 806 will be applicable wherein it was held waste and scrap removal of, for reprocessing and return, erstwhile Rule 57F is not applicable. 3.6. Judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Techno Cable Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise 2001 (136) ELT 721 will be applicable wherein identical issue has been decided. 4. None appeared on behalf of the respondent. We find that the hearing notice issued by the Tribunal are returned back undelivered with a remark that the addressee has left the place'. Since t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sputed that the plastic waste and scrap which gets generated during the manufacture of final products are sent to job-worker and received back as granules which are further consumed in the manufacture of final products. On the face of such factual matrix, in our view, both the lower authorities were correct in holding that no liability arise on the respondent-assessee. 8. Further, the benefit of Notification 214/86 should be applicable to the inputs on which cenvat credit is availed but at the same time the assessee kept the department informed by following the procedure to indicate that that they are clearing the waste and scrap to the job-worker and received the same back as granules. In our considered view, this transparency in the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
