Bookmarks   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login  
Tax Management India .com   
   TMI - Tax Management India. Com   
AO cannot re-open assessment merely for non filing of ITR unless the total income is exceeding maximum amount which is not chargeable to tax    *    WITH GST CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS, WHAT NEXT ?    *    Companies Act, 2013-25 Key Highlights    *    status foodgrain pulses and oilseed    *    Service tax exemption for transportation of life saving medicines    *    Applicability Of Service tax on Liquidated Damages    *    Goods and GST Bill passed    *    determination of assessable value for job work transaction    *    CENVAT CREDIT    *    Excise Cenvat credit on Electricity Power bill    *    Employees sent on deputation to subsidiary/ associate companies (Service Tax)    *    GLOW SIGN AND HOARDING    *    Regarding cenvat credit on service tax on rent a cab    *    Potato Chips as Namkeen    *    Central Excise Exemption of ₹ 150 Lakhs    *    Cenvat credit on water treatment plant    *    Cenvat Credit - refund - export of services - The registration is not the sole criteria for granting refund, so long the other conditions are satisfied, refund shall be granted - Tri    *    CENVAT credit demo cars capital goods input nothing is demonstrated today that a demo car falls in any of the Chapters dealing with capital goods - credit cannot be allowed - Tri    *    Period of limitation - in case duty was required to be paid on the strips, the appellant was entitled to avail credit of duty paid on the granules, which would have neutralized the entire demand on the strips - in this Revenue neutrally background, there could be no malafide on the part of the appellant to evade duty - Tri    *    Validity of statutory provisions - Imposition of penalty on company and directors - he legislature while in view of such situation has granted discretion to the executive, at the same time, provided for sufficient guidelines and safeguards so that such discretion does not convert into arbitrary or discretionary exercise of powers - HC    *    Strengthening Our Debt Markets (Dr. Raghuram G. Rajan, Governor - August 26, 2016 - at Annual Day Address to Foreign Exchange Dealers Association of India, Mumbai)
Article Section
Home Articles Cenvat Credit Mr.M. GOVINDARAJAN
← Previous Next →


Submit New Article

Discuss this article

April 29, 2011
  • Article

It is inevitable in the industry of any type to assign work to the job worker.  There are many issues involved in the principal manufacturer and the job worker. One among the problem is whether the principal manufacture is liable to pay duty on waste and scrap generated and sold by the job work. This problem is discussed in this article with reference to decided case laws.

In ‘International Tobacco Co. Ltd V. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ghaziabad’ – [2003 -TMI - 52425 - CESTAT, NORTHERN BENCH, NEW DELHI] it was held that when no process of manufacture of waste and scrap has taken place at the end of principal manufacturer, duty cannot be demanded from the principal manufacturer. 

In ‘M/s Emco Limited V. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai’ – [2007 -TMI - 3638 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] it was held that waste and scrap used at the end of job worker cannot be held to be dutiable in the principal manufacturer’s hands.

In ‘M/s Rocket Engineering Corporation Limited V. Commissioner’ – 2006 -TMI - 3721 - HIGH COURT BOMBAY the following are the question of law arises for consideration of the High 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 at the job worker end, which is not received back from the job worker within the specified time in terms of Notification No.214/86-CE, dated 25.03.1986 as amended in r/w Rule 4(5)(a) of CENVAT Credit Rules?

B. Whether scrap generated at the job worker end out of the processing of the inputs is required to be returned to the supplier and, if it is not returned back whether the supplier of inputs is required to pay appropriate central excise thereon?

The High Court held that it is not in dispute that the assessee had paid duty on the scrap generated at the factory of the job worker for the period April 1999 to March 2000. There is no liability on the principal manufacturer after 31.03.2000 in view of amended Rule 57AC of the CENVAT Credit Rules.  Therefore no substantial question of law arises in this appeal.

In FAG Engineering (I) Limited V. Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara’ – [2011 -TMI - 202740 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD] the appellant is engaged in manufacture of various types of balls and roller bearings falling under Chapter 84 of First Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.   The appellant is availing the benefit of CENVAT credit of duty paid on the inputs i.e., seamless tubes and steel bars.   After availing the CENVAT credit, the said inputs were being supplied to the job worker for carrying the requisite intermediate processes.   During the course of such intermediate processes, waste and scrap was also being generated at the end of job worker and the waste and scrap so generated was being sold by the job worker and was not being returned by them to the appellant.   However the appellant was paying duty on such waste and scrap generated at the job worker’s end and sold by them by considering the generation as 15%.

During the course of investigation, statements of various persons were recorded and it was found that generation of scrap, in respect of DTA unit was to the tune around 44.3% of the quantity of seamless tubes supplied by the appellant and in respect of 100% EOU, the same was to the tune of around 22.4% of the quantity of steel bars supplied by the appellant.   As such, proceedings were initiated against the appellant by way of issuance of show cause notice seeking to confirm central excise duty on actual quantity of scrap generated at the end of job worker in terms of provisions of Sec. 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 along with interest and penalty.   The Commissioner confirmed the demand along with interest and penalty of equal amount.   The Commissioner has relied upon the provisions of Rule 4 and Rule  4(5)(a) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and concluded that waste and scrap generated at the job worker’s end was required to be returned to the appellant’s factory, who were duty bound to clear the same on payment of duty.    The Commissioner further held that this is not a case of recovery of wrongly taken CENVAT credit, so as to invoke the provisions of Rule 12/14 of CENVAT Credit Rules.   He held that this is a case of short levy of Central Excise duty, which can be demanded under Section 11A of Central Excise Act.  Accordingly he has invoked the extended period of recovery of differential duty not paid on the waste and scrap.

Being aggrieved against the order of the Commissioner, the appellant filed the present appeal before the Tribunal.  The appellant contended that they are not the manufacturer of waste and scrap and in terms of provisions of Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944.   The duty can be demanded from the manufacturer i.e., one who has actually manufactured the excisable goods.   The waste and scrap has arisen in the hands of the job worker, who was the manufacturer, duty liability, if any can be demanded from the job worker only.

The Court analysed the provisions of Rule 4(5)(a) of CENVAT credit Rules.   It is clear from the said rule, as assessee who has availed the MODVAT credit on inputs to a job worker for the specified purposes, the goods are required to be received back in the factory of the assessee within a period of 180 days of their being sent to a job worker.   The consequence of non receipt of such goods is that the MODVAT credit originally availed by the manufacturer is required to be reversed.   As such in terms of the above, no duty liability can be fastened upon the principal manufacturer, in case of non receipt of goods, but the consequence would be reversal of the credit availed on the inputs. 

The Court further held that duty is being demanded by treating them as a manufacturer of waste and scrap, which is factually incorrect.   The present provisions of Rule 4(5)(a), when compared with erstwhile Rule 57F(4) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 makes a clear distinction inasmuch as the said Rule nowhere requires the return of waste and scrap generated at the job worker’s end.  The Court set aside the confirmation of differential duty, interest and imposition of penalty upon the appellant by holding that the appellant was under no obligation to pay the duty on waste and scrap used at the job worker’s end and sold by them. 


By: Mr.M. GOVINDARAJAN - April 29, 2011



Discuss this article



← Previous Next →
what is new what is new

Advanced Search

Latest Updates




More Options


|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map || ||

© [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version