9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 1194X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... time of his clearance is also supported by job work Challans, excise Invoice besides the Order dated 9 June 2006 passed by the Assistant Commissioner in the connected proceedings. The issue involved herein is also covered by the decision of this Tribunal in EMCO LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI-III [ 2007 (11) TMI 108 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] where it was held that supplier can not be held liable on the ground that the worker had not discharged duty liability on impugned waste and scrap. Irrespective of whether the job worker had discharged the duty liability on the scrap generated at hisend, the duty liability cannot be fastened on the principal manufacturer/supplier of inputs. Appeal allowed. - Excise Appeal No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2002 to December 2003 alleging short receipt of 243 MT and demanding reversal of Rs. 18,16,908.11. Another Show cause Notice dated 7 May 2008 (SCN-2) was also issued alleging short receipt of 1314 MT {1206.1 MT of PP and 108.07 MT of LLDPE) out of 7259.10 MT and 1464.25 MT of PP and LLDPE Granules respectively sent to the job workers during the period April 2003 to August 2004 and demanding reversal of Rs. 97,55,658/-. 3. Both the SCN-1 and SCN-2 were adjudicated by a common order and the demand was confirmed for Rs. 67,67,850/- along with equivalent penalty. Further, the short receipt for the period April 2003 to August 2004 was determined as 667.65 MT (552.1 MT of PP and 115.49 MT of LLDPE) as opposed to 1314.17 MT proposed in SCN-2 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner on a connected issue for an overlapping period. The demand confirmed was also contested on the ground of limitation in light of the Order dated 9 June 2006 passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the yearly permission granted by the Jurisdictional Commissioner under Rule 4(6) of the CCR acknowledging the generation of waste/scrap at the job workers end. 5. The Ld. Departmental Representative justifies the findings in the O-I-O . 6. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 7. The issue arising for our determination in the instant proceedings is whether pro-rata Cenvat credit is required to be reversed under Rule 4(5)(a) of the CCR with respect to the short receipt of the processed inputs from the premises of the job ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Corporation Ltd. - 2006 (76) RLT 8 (Bom). Hence after granting the prayer for stay, we take-up the appeal itself for final disposal. 2. Irrespective of whether the job worker had discharged the duty liability on the scrap generated at hisend, the duty liability cannot be fastened on the principal manufacturer/supplier of inputs in the light of the Hon ble Bombay High Court decision cited supra, upholding Tribunal s order reported in 2005 (191) E.L.T. 483 which in turn relies upon the decision in the case of Preetam Enterprises, 2004 (173) E.L.T. 26(Tribunal). The period in dispute in the present appeal is post 31-3-2000 which is the period covered by the Hon ble Bombay High Court decision cited supra. Following the ratio of the Hon bl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
