TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 522X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds to show that they had maintained separate accounts of the Grog received by the market and non-duty paid nature of the said Grog. In the absence of any such records, the appellant is not able to justify his claim that they are not required to pay duty on “Grog” - demand upheld. Appeal allowed in part. - Appeal No. E/1489/2010 - A/31121/2018 - Dated:- 20-8-2018 - Mr. M.V. RAVINDRAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And Mr. P. VENKATA SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Narsimha Murthy, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri Dass Thavanam, Superintendent (AR) for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per: M.V. Ravindran] This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. 06/2010 (H-III) CE dt. 29.04.2010. 2. The relevant facts that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the demands raised in respect of clearances of Grog, the amount involved is ₹ 4,47,320/- that the said Grog is combination of the waste of refractory materials purchased by them from the market as well as importer and self generated. He submits that the Grog is imported, the duty liability discharged while on the Grog purchased from the market Central Excise duty liability not discharged by the supplier. He would submit that they have cleared the consignments of non-duty paid Grog only. 3.1 As regards the duty liability of ₹ 17,54,492/- on the clearances of waste and M.S. Scrap arising out of M.S. Plates, Moulds/Liners etc., he submits that this scrap was generated during the process of maintenance and repairs of their capi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wornout parts of machinery and during maintenance in workshop. This fact is not in dispute by the Revenue as assessee issued letters dated 10.12.2005 informing the audit party is on record, and not disputed or controverted in any manner. If that be so, we find that the reliance placed by the First Appellate Authority on the judgment of Union of India Vs. Grasim Industries (High Court of Rajasthan) would not be of any help as the judgment was carried SLP in Apex Court. Apex Court in the judgment dated 13.10.2011 (as cited herein above) specifically in paragraph No. 14 held that such scrap is not dutiable. With great respect, we reproduce the paragraph 14: 14. In the present case, it is clear that the process of repair and maintenance o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct as appellant is not able to produce any evidence to claim that such Grog cleared by them were non-duty paid and received from open market. Appellant should have produced records to show that they had maintained separate accounts of the Grog received by the market and non-duty paid nature of the said Grog. In the absence of any such records, we hold that the appellant is not able to justify his claim that they are not required to pay duty on Grog . Accordingly, we hold that the lower authorities were correct in confirming the demand of ₹ 4,47,320/- along with interest and impose penalties. We do not find any reason to interfere such a reasoned order of the lower authorities on the point of duty liability on Grog. 7. The appeal s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
