TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 424X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l) Shri G. Krishnamurthy, Advocate For the Appellant Shri S. Nagalingam, AC (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per: Sulekha Beevi C.S The issue involved in this appeal is whether appellants are liable to pay duty on the processed loss occurred during job work. 2. The appellants are manufacturers of Copper Anode and they sent the above anode under challan without payment of duty to their job worker unit located at Silvasa for conversion of the same into Copper Cathode and Continuous Copper Rod. They cleared the above mentioned final product from the job worker's premises itself after payment of duty but the duty for the above said goods is discharged at Tuticorin. They obtained permission from the Commissioner of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore pleaded that appeal may be allowed. 5. On behalf of Revenue, Ld. A.R Shri S. Nagalingam (AC) reiterated the findings in the impugned order. However, with regard to the question whether the issue has been covered by the judgment passed by the Tribunal, Commissioner (Appeals) as well as Adjudicating Authority for the different periods as stated above, a letter dt. 02-06-2017 has been produced by Ld. A.R stating that orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and adjudicating authority as stated above has been accepted by the department and no further appeal has been filed by the department. 6. On the submissions made by both sides, we find that the issue whether appellant is liable to pay duty on the burning loss occurred in the j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erred to in the condition would only be such losses that could be insured against. There can be no insurance for invisible loss. Therefore invisible loss is not covered by the said condition. 24. In view of the above position and harmoniously interpreting the said conditions with provision of Sec.3 and Sec.37 of Central Excise Act, and Rule 4 of Central Credit Rules the loss referred to in the said condition could only be loss other than invisible loss which is inevitable due to theft etc. and not invisible process loss. Hence the demand on the process loss under section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 envisaged in the show cause notice is not correct and also not legally sustainable. Accordingly, the demand of interest under section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
