TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 842X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... after going through the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), no infirmity in the impugned order. - Decided against assessee - Appeal No. E/587/10- Mum - - - Dated:- 22-12-2015 - Mr. S.S. Garg, Member (Judicial) For the Petitioner : Ms. Aparna H., Advocate For the Respondent : Shri V.K. Shastri, AC (AR) ORDER This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. APK/08/NSK/2010 dated 14.01.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Nashik whereby the refund claim of the appellant is rejected by upholding the Order-in-Original. 2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture and sale of excisable goods namely motor vehicle parts falling under chapter 87 and 72 of the first schedu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d time by the appellant. He also submitted that it is settled proposition of law that duty is not payable by the principal manufacturer on scrap generated on job workers premise irrespective of whether job worker has paid the duty or not. In support of his argument, he relied upon the following judgments: a) International Tobacco - 2004 (165) ELT 314 (T) b) Silicon Cortec - 2004 (166) ELT 473 c) Rocket Engg. Corpn. - 2005 (191) ELT 483 d) Preetam Enterprises - 2004 (173) ELT 26 e) Rocket Engg. Corpn. - 2006 (193) ELT 33; upheld by Bombay High Court 2008 (223) ELT 347 f) Alucast Foundries P. Ltd. 2008 (89) RLT 244 4. He also held that the Tribunal has held in CCE vs. Unique Auto Assemblies - 2007-TIOL-411- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd. Vs. CCE reported in 2006 (193) ELT 33 (Tri-Mum). The claim was however, rejected on following grounds: (i) that the enclosed invoices indicate that the removals have taken place under the cover of assessee s own invoices and from the own premises located at Plot no. E-67/68, MIDC, Ambad, Nashik. (ii) the invoices prepared by appellant do not show double payment of duty; (iii) Disclaimer certificate given by job worker only indicates that they do not have anything to do with the duty paid by appellant. (iv) Certificate given by the job worker does not claim that appellant has paid duty erroneously; (v) Duty even paid at job worker s end, is not reflected anywhere in invoices issued by the appellant. (vi) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
