9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 759X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue to delay in receipt Cenvat credit cannot be denied as the appellant was entitled for Cenvat credit as and when the input / processed goods received after 180 days therefore on both the count the cenvat credit could not have been denied or demanded by the Revenue. There is a short receipt of 2% material - since the appellant has sent their chemicals in the water base during the process it is obvious that a certain quantity of the contaminated water shall be wasted therefore, the same is not capable of being returned by the job worker. Irrespective of the fact whether the same is liable to be returned or not there is no dispute that the non receipt of material is wastage and nothing else. It is settled that any wastage arising during the course of manufacture cenvat credit attributed to said wastage cannot be denied. Time limitation - HELD THAT:- Since the appellant has followed the procedure as prescribed in Rule 4(5)(a) for movement of goods for job work. No suppression of fact can be attributed to the appellant. Therefore, the demand is not sustainable on the time limitation also. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeal No.10947 of 2018 - A/100 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re element is required to be returned by the job workers. As per the agreement the job worker is required to provide a yield of 85% +/-5%. 1.2 In the Above factual background during December 2013-March2015 appellants clear inputs weighing 2,29,794 kgs(including water base) to the job worker M/s. Keaum Organics Pvt. Ltd. and Excise Duty was paid on this entire quantity of 2,29,794 kgs although the same contained water base also. The pure material of chemical in such a total quantity of 2,29,794 kgs was 1,08,927 kgs ( approximately 47%) only. As per the agreement, the quantity weighing 93,982 kgs (86.28% of input quantities sent) was returned within 180 days to the appellant. The remaining quantity 14,945 kgs was waste material which mainly consists of contaminated water. If at no point of time for inputs returned by the job worker for more than 180 days the material not returned back is only wastage which remains after the process of inputs. 1.3 The CERA audit conducted by the Central Excise Department where an objection was raised regarding receipt of such quantities of input from job workers M/s. Keaum Organics Pvt. Ltd. after expiry of 180 days. The appellant debited the Ce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... during December 2013 to March 2015 sent 2,29,794 Kgs of material (including water base) out of which chemical element is 1,08,927 Kgs to M/s. Keaum Organics Pvt. Ltd. who generated a yield of 93,982 Kgs ( excluding water base). The remaining 14,945 Kgs was residue material (including water base). The appellants submit that usually M/s. Keaum Organics Pvt. Ltd. does not return such waste residue. However, in the present case due to certain constraints, M/s. Keaum Organics Pvt. Ltd. returned 6400 Kgs of such waste material to the appellants for disposal vide a job work challan No. 26 dated 30.07.2015 instead of disposing the waste themselves. It was contended by the audit team that the said inputs were received beyond a period of 180 days. However, as submitted (supra), the material of 6400 Kgs returned by Keaum Organics after expiry of 180 days was only wastage since the yield of ₹ 93,982 Kgs was already returned by them within 180 days. 2.2 He without prejudice submits that, even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that inputs were received after 180 days , the entire situation is revenue neutral in as much as Rule 4(5)(a) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 itself provides ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 375) ELT 358 (T) CCE v. Rocket Engineering Corporation Ltd. -2008 (223) ELT 347 (Bom.) CCE v. Bharat Radiators Ltd.-2002 (148) ELT 1101 (T) Voltamp Transformers Ltd. v. CCE-2015 (329) ELT 380 (T) Rollex Electro Products P. Ltd. v. CCE-2016 (338) ELT 736 (T) Asianol Lunricants Ltd. v. CCE-2018 (2) TMI 10- CESTAT Kolkata BEML Ltd v. CCE-2021 (8) TMI 170-CESTAT Bangalore Zenith Machine Tools Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE-2010 (255) ELT 83 (T) Uttam Sucrotech Ltd v. CCE-2018 (7) TMI 1203-CESTAT Tata Motors Ltd v. CCE-2011 (264) ELT 385 (T) CCE v. Bombay Dyeing Mfg Co. Ltd.-2007 (215) ELT 3 (S.C) CCE Vs Dynaflex Pvt. Ltd.-2011 (266) ELT 41 (Guj.) Garden Silk Mills Ltd v. CCE-2016 (332)ELT 820 (T) CCE v. Strategic Engineering (P) Ltd.-2014 (310) ELT 509 (Mad.) CCE v. Bill Forge Pvt. Ltd.-2012 (279) ELT 209 (Kar.) Amco Batteries Ltd v. CCE-2003 (153) ELT 7 (SC) CCE v. Mahindra Mahindra Ltd.-2005 (179) ELT 21 (SC) CCE v. Narmada Chematur Pharmaceuticals Ltd.- 2005 (179) 276 (SC) Commissioner v. Shiv Steel Re-Rolling Mills- 2016 (337) ELT A94 (Bom.) UOI v. Indian Ispat Works Pvt. Ltd.- 2015 (322) ELT 647 (Chhattisgarh) Rashtriya Ispat Nigam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
