9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 100X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of motor vehicles and parts thereof. During the period March, 2004 to February, 2005 the appellant produced inputs on which they have availed CENVAT Credit through their job-worker under Rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The scrap generated at the job-worker's premises was not received back by them. On advice, the appellant have paid duty on such scrap. Further, on realizing that no such duty was payable on the scrap generated at the job-worker's premises, the appellant filed refund claim for Rs. 5,03,878/- on the ground that they have wrongly debited the duty towards payment for the duty on scrap generated at job-worker's premises. It was contended that there was no provisions for duty liability on the appellant u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal. 3. Mr. S. Chandrsekhar, Dy. GM of the appellant states that there has been change in the provisions of law. Prior to Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, under the Central Excise Rules, 1944, Rule 57F(5)(i) provided "the waste, if any, arising in the course of any operation mentioned in sub-rule (4) shall be returned to the factory of the manufacturer of final products." He further points out that this provision is no longer there in the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 whereas under Rule 4(5)(a), there is no provision for reversing credit and/or paying duty on the scrap generated at job-worker's premises not brought back by the original manufacturer. 3.1 The appellant further states that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se Rules. Accordingly, he prays that the appeal may be allowed with consequential benefits. 4. The learned AR relies on the impugned order. He further relies on the ruling of this Tribunal in the case of Mahindra Ugine Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad - 2005 (192) ELT 781 (Tri-Mum). 5. Having considered the rival contentions, I find that the ruling relied upon by the learned AR is not applicable as the said ruling relates to the period prior to March, 2000. Accordingly, following the ruling of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Rocket Engineering (supra) and also in view of the provisions of Rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, there is no requirements made either for return of scrap from t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
