9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 1470X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not the manufacturer of the waste and scrap and therefore, there is no liability on the appellant to pay the duty on the waste and scrap manufactured at the job worker s end. Further, the provision of Rule 4(5)(a) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 nowhere states that the waste and scrap generated at the job worker s end makes the principal manufacturer liable to payment of duty on such waste and scrap.' There are no merit in the impugned orders and resultantly same is set aside - appeal allowed. - Hon ble Shri P. Dinesha, Member (Judicial) And Hon ble Shri M. Ajit Kumar, Member (Technical) Shri M. Karthikeyan, Advocate for the Appellant Shri M. Ambe, Authorized Representative for the Respondent Per P. Dinesha, These appeals arise out ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellate authority has in the impugned order upheld the demands confirmed in Orders-in-Original No.27/2013-CE dated 30.7.2013; No.35/2013-CE dated 9.12.2013 and No. 6/2014-CE dated 30.7.2014 thereby rejecting the appeals. It is against these orders that the present appeals have been preferred by the appellant. 3. Shri M. Karthikeyan, learned counsel appeared for the appellant and Shri M. Ambe, learned Authorized Representative appeared for the Revenue. 4. Heard both sides and perused the records. 5. After hearing both sides, we find that the only issue to be decided in all the above appeals is whether the Revenue is correct in demanding excise duty on the scrap / waste which is generated during the job work, which was cleared by the job w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 07/2017 dated 26.7.2017, Final Order No. 41710/2017 dated 18.8.2017 and Final Order No. 40621/2019 dated 28.3.2019. 4. The learned AR Shri S. Balakumar appeared for the Revenue and reiterated the findings given in the impugned order. 5. We find that the issue contained in these appeals have been considered in Final Order No.41307/2017 dated 26.7.2017. Para 2.1 of the said order is reproduced below; The lower authorities have confirmed the demand of Rs.38,034/- along with interest and imposition of penalty of Rs.5,000/-, on the ground that it is the principal manufacturer who is required to pay duty on the waste and scrap arising in the job workers factory and not returned by them to the factory of the principal manufacturer. I find that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
