TMI Blog2005 (4) TMI 495X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... further processing, under Rule 57F2 as amended, renumbered from time to time. The allegation is that the appellant has not brought back the waste arising out of the processing done in the hands of his job worker nor has he paid the duty involved on such waste. Rule 57F(5) prescribes that appropriate duty has to be paid on such waste. 2.Heard both sides. 3.The contentions raised before us are that the appellant is not the manufacturer of waste and scrap but the job worker is and therefore it is the job worker who has to discharge the duty on such waste and scrap; that appropriate duty on the waste and scrap is the effective rate of duty leviable and if a job worker is exempt from payment of duty under SSI exemption no duty is payable b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r processing is not enough to say that larger period of limitation is not invocable; that Rule 57F(5) brings out that appropriate duty has to be discharged by the manufacturer who has taken the credit on the inputs. 5.The rival contentions are examined. On the issue as to who should discharge the duty liability on the waste and scrap that generated during the process of manufacture of inputs on which credit has been taken, we hold that it is the person who has taken the credit that has to pay the duty on such waste and scrap. The argument that duty has to be discharged on the waste and scrap generated by a manufacturer (job worker in this case) is generally a correct contention. But since Modvat is a special scheme, self contained and com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be upheld. 6.The lower authority has not accepted the appellants contention that a part of the duty leviable on the scrap was discharged by the job worker and rightly so. The only way to discharge the burden that duty has been paid on the scrap is to produce the documents under which such duty has been paid and not by producing Chartered Accountant s certificate etc. The appellant has not discharged the duty liability on the scrap in question. 7.The appellants further contention is that expression appropriate duty stated in 57F(5) refers to duty payable by the job worker. Thus if the job worker is eligible for SSI exemption, he need not pay duty on the scrap generated out of the process of manufacture. This contention has to be rej ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the following terms: (1) Duty on the scrap and waste not brought back to the factory of the appellant is payable by the appellant. (2) Larger period of limitation is invocable in the facts of this case. (3) Duty on the scrap be calculated after verifying the contention of the appellant that out of the total inputs removed during the disputed period duty was paid on 5028.247 MTs. (4) The appellants have not established that duty on the scrap left with the job workers was paid by the job workers. (5) Penalty under Section 11AC is set aside. (6) Demand for interest under Section 11AB is set aside. 11. The appeal is partly allowed in the above terms. The matter is remanded to the original authority for co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
