9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1233X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lature in its wisdom has specifically omitted the words "either to get back the scrap generated / produced at the job worker's end or to pay duty on the same" - Time limitation. Held that: - In the case of Mahendra Hinoday Industries Ltd., [2011 (9) TMI 139 - CESTAT, MUMBAI], it has been observed by the Tribunal that the liability to pay excise duty and the manner of payment of duty are governed by Rule 4 and 8 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. They are, not in any way, altered or changed by the CCR, 2004 which deals with allowing of CENVAT credit. The CCR, 2004 does not create any liability to pay excise duty under any of its provision. It provides for reversal of credit in case the credit has been taken wrongly. Therefore under Rule 4(6) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and it was found that they were ten job workers to whom such inputs, on which CENVAT credit have been availed, was sent for conversion on job work basis during the period from 1.7.2006 to 31.1.2011 and the total quantity of scrap generated and cleared without payment of central excise duty was ₹ 8,72,231.76 kg and the central excise duty liable to be paid on clearances of such worked out to be Rsa18.03 lakhs. Thereafter a show-cause notice was issued demanding the duty on scrap generated and cleared from the said job workers premises besides proposing penalty. The adjudicating authority by following the due process of law confirmed the demand along with interest and imposed penalty of ₹ 10,000/- under Rule 25 of Central Excise R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y Instructions, as waste and scrap are final products within the definition given in CCR and are classified under Chapter Heading 7204 of CETA, 1985 and are liable for duty under Section 3 of Central Excise Act, 1944. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the assessee supported the impugned order and submitted that the learned Commissioner (A) has considered all the materials on record and thereafter has rightly come to the conclusion that duty cannot be demanded from the principal manufacturer for the scrap and waste generated at the level of job worker. He further submitted that as per the provisions of Rule 4(5)(a) of CCR, 2004 only mandates that the raw material supplier is to get back the job work processed goods and to use ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngineering Corporation: 2008 (223) ELT 347 (Bom.) ii. Rocket Engineering Corporation vs. CCE, Pune: 2006 (193) ELT 33 (Tri. -Mum.) iii. Mahindra Hinoday Industries Ltd. vs. CCE, Pune: 2013 (292) ELT 456 (Tri. -Mum.) iv. Emco Ltd. vs. CCE, Mumbai: 2008 (223) ELT 613 (Tri. -Mum.) v. Alucat Foundries Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Mangalore: 2009 (236) ELT 301 (Tri.-Bang.) vi. Preetam Enterprises vs. CCE: 2004 (173) ELT 26 (Tri.-Del.) vii. International Tobacco Co. Ltd. vs. CCE, Ghaziabad: 2004 (165) ELT 314 (Tri. -Del.) viii. Fag Engineering (I) Ltd. vs. CCE, Vadodara: 2011 (266) ELT 193 (Tri.-Ahmd.) 5.1 He further submitted that in view of the settled legal position, the demand cannot be sustained on the raw materi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
