TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 410X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tribunal held that the appellants were not liable to discharge duty on waste and scrap generated at job worker's end. The order impugned does not survive which is set aside to allow the appeal. - MR C J MATHEW, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) AND MR AJAY SHARMA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri Gajendra Jain, Advocate with Shri Saurav Bhise, Advocate for the appellant Shri P K Acharya, Superintendent (AR) for the respondent ORDER The appellant, M/s VE Commercial Vehicles Ltd a manufacturer of motor vehicles and parts is before us with the grievance that Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai I, in impugned order [order-in-appeal no. BR/170/Th-I/2013 dated 26th March 2013], upheld the common adjudicating order con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to undertake processing on inputs or partially processed inputs which are returned for final processing at their end. He further submitted that waste and scrap so generated were sold by the job worker and, in the mistaken belief of such being liable to duty, payment was duly effected only till 1st January 2008 and stoppage thereafter intimated to the central excise authorities. He informed that the refund dispute pertained to that period while the dispute on recovery related to the period thereafter and, having been carried to the Tribunal, was also in their favour. 4. Learned Counsel for appellant not only relied upon the decision in re Rocket Engineering Corporation Ltd but also the disposal of their appeal [E/85604/2013] in fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tri.-Mum.)]. 3 In view of the above decision, I see no merits in the contention of the ld. DR that the Rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2002 would also require that waste and scrap should be returned from the job workers to the factory of the principal manufacturer. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. 3.2 Affirming this decision Hon ble Bombay High Court has as reported at [2008 (223) ELT 347 (Bom.)] held that 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant contends that following substantial question of law arises for consideration of this Court. A. Whether the assessee i.e. the supplier of inputs to the job worker is liable to pay Central Excise Duty on the scrap generated a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e demanded from the appellants since the job worker is the manufacturer of the said scrap, which is retained by him and sold in the market. 13. The similar issue is answered in the case of M/s. International Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. CCE, Ghaziabad [2004 (165) E.L.T. 314 (Tri.-Del.)]. It is observed that no process of manufacturing taking place in respect of waste and scrap generated during the course of manufacture of cigarettes. Moreover, provision for dutiability of waste and scrap existed only in the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 (Rule 57F) and no such provision is there in the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001. Duty is not leviable under Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 3.4 In the case of M/s. International Tobacco Co. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
