9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 609X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and other blended fabrics falling under chapters 50, 51 and 55 of Central Excise Tariff. It obtained permission from the Assistant Commissioner for sending grey fabrics for job work to convert the same into finished fabrics and to bring the same from the job workers' premises or export the same there from (from the premises of job workers). It had sent 164 consignments under job work challans during the period 28.08.2003 to 09.12.2003 and were issued a SCN demanding Central Excise duty of Rs. 7,59,14,083/- on the ground that the goods sent under the said 164 challans were not received back within 90 days nor was any evidence submitted of the said goods having been exported from the job workers premises. The primary adjudicating authority v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2.01% to 8.49% and thus, the shrinkage found in the case of the appellant was rather on the lower side of the range. 3. The Ld. DR on the other hand argued that on the previous hearing the appellant was required to submit evidence of the reasonable shrinkage which takes place during the job work on such fabrics and agreed that the appellant had since submitted Textile Committee Report showing the extent of shrinkage in respect of such fabrics. 4. We have considered the contentions of both sides. 5. It is seen that the entire demand pertains to the shortage of 7734.79 meters of fabrics which was noticed when the fabrics cleared under 164 challans was received after job work. We find that this shortage is approximately 3% of the total qua ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authority concluded that the noticee is liable to pay duty on 7734.79 meters of fabrics short received due to shrinkage. 6. In the light of the above analysis it is evident that there has been no illegal diversion of the goods sent for job work and the goods sent for job work were duly processed by the job workers and the resultant product (i.e. the processed fabrics) was either exported or sent back to the appellant; indeed there is no allegation of illegal diversion either. Therefore, there is no question of recovery of any differential duty on the shrinkage in this case. As a result, the impugned demand is not sustainable. When the impugned demand itself is not sustainable, the question of penalty in relation thereto under Rule 25 of Ce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
