9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 157X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d it provides with the theoretical input output norms that too for the purpose of import and export of the goods. Even when the imports are allowed as per the SION norms the actual consumption of the input in the export goods is always variable as compared to the ratio provided under the SION norms. Therefore there is always difference between the input output norms given in SION and the actual input output ratio in the physical manufacture of the goods. Therefore the SION norms cannot be applied in the facts of the present case. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/586/11 - A/87810/17/SMB - Dated:- 9-6-2017 - Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) Shri Mayur Shroff, Advocate for Appellant Shri A.B. Kulgod, Asstt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scrap was sent to the job worker, the same was after conversion returned in the form of brass rod. There is no case of the department that either the brass scrap which was cleared to the job worker was diverted otherwise or the same was used in the brass rod which cleared clandestinely. Therefore, the duty on the difference of burning loss was wrongly demanded. Even it is not clear either from the show cause notice or from the order on what goods the duty is demanded. As per the chart of the show cause notice the duty was demanded only on differential quantity of burning loss. For this reason also the demand is not sustainable. In the case of job work the SION norms cannot be made applicable as the process is not within the control of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by both the sides, I find that there is no dispute that the quantity of brass scrap sent by the appellant to the job worker against which the entire quantity was processed and whatever resultant product emerged that is brass rods was returned by the job worker to the appellant. It is not the case of revenue that due to burning loss, any quantity of either brass scrap or processed rods has been diverted somewhere else instead of bringing to the factory by the appellant. For such situation, whether there is burning loss of 7.5% or even 15% that alone cannot be reason to demand the duty. More over, in the entire proceedings it was not made clear that on which goods the duty was demanded. Annexure B enclosed with the show cause notice also d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ificate wherein it was certified that the process loss in the job work from 16% to 27%. The Revenue could not produce any contrary evidence to discard claim of the appellant. It is not a department case that the 16% is not a process loss but either it is a physical scrap or removal of inputs as such. In such situation the demand cannot be confirmed. All the judgments relied upon by the Learned Counsel support the case of the appellant. We therefore set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. From the above decision it can be seen that the facts of the present is identical to that case. As per my discussion and relying on the decision of Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd. (supra) the entire demand worked out by taking the difference ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
