9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1169X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... could have followed the procedure prescribed under Rule 4(5)(a) ibid and the appellant could have manufactured the finished product out of the inputs supplied on job work basis and return the same without payment of duty. In such eventuality, the differential duty cannot be demanded in terms of the procedures prescribed under the Cenvat statute. The value of scrap need not be included in assessable value of the product and cleared by the job worker. Valuation - inclusion of the amortized value of moulds and dies in the job charges - HELD THAT:- The appellant had accepted the duty liability and not contested the duty demand confirmed against it - thus the duty demand on such ground has been rightly confirmed by the authorities below. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... turer in the job charges and central excise duty liability was not discharged thereon. Accordingly, the department had contended that proper duty liability was not discharged by the appellant in accordance with Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 6 of the Valuation Rules, 2000. The department initiated show cause proceedings against the appellant, seeking for recovery of short paid central excise duty along with interest and for imposition of penalty. The matter was adjudicated vide order dated 31.08.2009, wherein the original authority had confirmed central excise duty demand of ₹ 46,36,869/- along with interest and also imposed equal amount of penalty. An amount of ₹ 15,79,550/- deposited by the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10 (260) ELT A84 (SC), to support its stand that no differential duty can be confirmed on sale of scrap items by the appellant, especially in view of the fact that on clearance of the same, appropriate central excise duty liability was discharged by the appellant. He has also relied upon the judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court, in the case of International Auto Ltd. Vs CCE-2005 (183) ELT 239 (SC) and the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Lawkim Ltd. Vs CCE-2007 (218) ELT 142 (Tri.-Mum.) and SRF Ltd. Vs CCE-2007 (220) ELT 201 (Tri.-Chennai), affirmed by Hon ble Supreme Court, reported in 2016 (331) ELT A138 (SC), to strengthen the stand of the appellant that no duty demand can be confirmed on sale of scrap items by the appellant. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... send the same to the job worker for the manufacture of intermediate product, for use in the manufacture of the ultimate final product. In such a situation, the job worker who manufactures the intermediate product is not liable to pay any duty. Thus, the principal manufacturer M/s Tata Motors could have followed the procedure prescribed under Rule 4(5)(a) ibid and the appellant could have manufactured the finished product out of the inputs supplied on job work basis and return the same without payment of duty. In such eventuality, the differential duty cannot be demanded in terms of the procedures prescribed under the Cenvat statute. 7. The issue regarding demand of differential duty on sale of scrap has been settled in favou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ein does not relate to demand of differential duty on sale of scrap. Hence, reliance placed on the said decision of the Tribunal is not relevant to the present case. Similarly, the ratio of the decision in the case of Ankur Packaging (supra) and appellant s own case (supra) is also not applicable to the facts of the present case inasmuch as the said decision does not deal with the situation of availability of the procedures laid down under Rule 4(5)(a) ibid, which had been specifically dealt with by the Tribunal in the case P.R. Rolling Mills (supra). 9. With regard to the issue of inclusion of the amortized value of moulds and dies in the job charges, we find from the impugned order that the appellant had accepted the duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
