1996 (11) TMI 227

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ants are engaged in the manufacture of motor vehicle parts. The department collected information that the appellants had not been paying Central Excise duty on scrap of iron and steel generated in the process of forging, rough turning, grinding etc. in the units of job workers in respect of the inputs on which a credit of duty had been allowed under Rule 57A and that the appellants had not been accounting for such waste/scrap. On a visit to the factory premises of the appellants Central Excise officers observed that the appellants had been sending the steel and forgings in respect of which a credit of Central Excise duty was availed under Rule 57A to various job workers/processers under Rule 57F(2). The job work challan used for removal of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... .T. in respect of Unit No. 2 involving Central Excise duty of Rs. 2,62,790.27 and Rs. 66,819.20 respectively. 3.  Shri Satnam Singh, SDR appearing for the appellant submits that the adjudicating authority while calculating the quantity of scrap generated has allowed irretrievable losses that this method of calculation was an indirect method which led to wrong results; that the quantity of scrap generated should have been worked out stagewise which was not done by the Additional Collector. He submitted that the method of claculation adopted by the learned Additional Collector was wrong and therefore prayed that the appeal may be allowed. 4.  Shri R. Pal Singh, Consultant submits that the learned Additional Collector had arrived a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cumstances and facts of an identical case had allowed an invisible loss of 12%. We also observe that in the calculation prepared by the department in their appeal memo no explanation has been offered as to why invisible loss was not allowed or to what extent the invisible loss was. No basis for not accepting the invisible loss calculated by the adjudicating authority has been adduced in the parallel calculation produced in the memo of appeal. Having regard to the fact that there is invisible loss coupled with the fact that in a similar case in identical conditions [this] Tribunal allowed an invisible loss of 12% we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. In the circumstances the impugned order is upheld and the appeal is rejected.< .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X