9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 562X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... / waste has to be included in assessable value which is not the case here. Apart from above, it is also a fact that the scrap retained by the Appellant was also cleared by them on payment of duty. If the value of scrap is deducted from the value of raw material and added to the job charges, the assessable value would remain same - as the Appellant has already included the scrap cost in job work charges and hence there is no reason to include the scrap value again in assessable value. The job work charges are not reduced by the value of scrap neither there is any evidence to allege so - duty demand not sustainable. Demand has also been made on the ground that cenvat of raw material is also to be added to the assessable value - Held that:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hey were issued show cause notices alleging that they have availed cenvat credit on all raw materials including MS Steel which is being sent to them by M/s Suzlon free of cost. That the inputs are being used in dutiable as well as exempted goods and they also did not maintain separate account. At the time of clearance the Appellant are reversing an amount equal to 10% of the value of exempted goods. While calculating the value of exempted final product, the Appellant has considered only the cost of actual quantity contained in the final product and not the value of raw material. The Appellant does not send back the scrap generated during the course of manufacture of job work of said exempted goods along with the consignment of the parts of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls are common we proceed to dispose all the appeals by common order. 2. Shri Saurabh Dixit, Ld. Advocate appearing for the Appellant submits that M/s Suzlon used to deduct the charges payable to the Appellant to the extent of scrap generation which shows that the job charges considered for working out assessable value were already inclusive of scrap component and hence there is no requirement of including such component once again in assessable value. He invited our attention to the relevant clause of the agreement between the appellant and M/s Suzlon which states that The cut length of the material/ scrap generated during fabrication to be debited to your account will be valued based upon raw material price. He submits that the assessa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... law that credit amount cannot be added to the assessable value at the hands of the job worker. He relies upon Apex Court judgment in case of Dai Ichi karkaria Ltd 1991 (112) ELT 353 (SC), Supack Industries P. Ltd. 2009 (242) ELT 250 (TRI) and Nellai Concrete Prod. Co. P. Ltd.2013 (296) ELT 132 (TRI). He also submits that the value of scrap has been adopted on basis of averaging out entire production which is not correct. He also submits that since the issue involved is of interpretation, hence the extended period demands are not sustainable. 3. On the other hand, Shri S.K. Shukla Ld. Superintendent (AR) appearing for the revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He further submits that since the scrap has been retained by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Tri. - Del.), the tribunal while dealing with the same issue held as under: 6. Firstly, the Revenue authorities want to include the value of scrap in the value of the goods job worked, i.e., HDPE bags and demand duty. It is undisputed that the appellant has discharged the duty liability on the scrap and again, demanded duty by including the value in job work charges, which will amount to double taxation. 7. Secondly, an identical issue came up before the Bench of the Tribunal in the case of P.R. Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. - 2010 (249) E.L.T. 232 (Tribunal-Bang.) (in which case one of us, Shri M.V. Ravindran was the Member in that Bench), wherein identical facts were recorded in Para 6, which we reproduce 6. We have conside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the lower authorities and the Departmental Representative will not carry their case any further. 10. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we hold that the impugned order is unsustainable and is accordingly set aside. The impugned is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief. 5 We find that the above judgment of tribunal is equally applicable to the present case as the Appellant has already included the scrap cost in job work charges and hence there is no reason to include the scrap value again in assessable value. The job work charges are not reduced by the value of scrap neither there is any evidence to allege so. We thus hold that the differential duty demand raised in terms of Rule 6 (3) (b) is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
