Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2017 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (1) TMI 1233 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT credit - scrap - job work - denial on the ground that the scrap generated during the job work is not received back by them but is retained and sold by the job workers without payment of excise duty on such scrap - a comparison of the provisions of Rule 57F(2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and the present Rule 4(5)(a) of CCR, 2004, it is very clear that in the erstwhile Rule 57F(2), the raw material suppliers was required to either get back the scrap generated/produced at the job worker's end or was required to pay duty on such scrap, whereas under the present Rule 4(5)(a) of CCR, the Legislature in its wisdom has specifically omitted the words "either to get back the scrap generated / produced at the job worker's end or to pay duty on the same" - Time limitation. Held that: - In the case of Mahendra Hinoday Industries Ltd., [2011 (9) TMI 139 - CESTAT, MUMBAI], it has been observed by the Tribunal that the liability to pay excise duty and the manner of payment of duty are governed by Rule 4 and 8 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. They are, not in any way, altered or changed by the CCR, 2004 which deals with allowing of CENVAT credit. The CCR, 2004 does not create any liability to pay excise duty under any of its provision. It provides for reversal of credit in case the credit has been taken wrongly. Therefore under Rule 4(6) of CCR, 2004 only such conditions can be prescribed which are in conformity with Rules 4 and 8 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and not conditions which are repugnant or contrary to the provisions of these Rules - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
|