TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 1516X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase of conversion job undertaken by the appellant, the raw materials received from M/s A.R. Stanchem Pvt. Ltd. in terms of the provisions of Rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 were converted into LABSA and by product Spent Sulphuric Acid and were returned to the said company as per the purchase orders placed on the appellant. M/s A.R.Stanchem Pvt. Ltd. received such goods in their factory and entered them in their DSA and paid duty at the time of clearance of such goods from their factory. It is pertinent to mention that the finished goods, LABSA and Spent Sulphuric Act are of same quality and the processing tank is also common in factory as it is not possible to manufacture goods separately. On analyzing total consumption of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Final Order No…76926/2019 - Dated:- 6-8-2019 - Shri P. K. Choudhary, Judicial Member And Shri Bijay Kumar, Technical Member For the Appellant : Shri B.N.Chattopadhyay, Consultant Shri N.K.Chowdhury, Advocaote For the Respondent : Shri D.Halder, Authorized Representative ORDER PER P.K.CHOUDHARY : Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of LABSA (90% of Acid Slurry), which is the main product and spent Sulphuric Acid emerges as by-product. The appellant is also engaged in the manufacture of own goods as well as on behalf of client (conversion job). The appellant s main product, Linear Alkyl Benzyne Sulphuric Acid 90% (LABSA 90%), commercially known as Acid Slu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the year. In the case of own manufacture and in the case of coversion job for others the ratio of LAB to LABSA is fixed as 1:1.47 which fact has been also admitted in the show-cause cum demand notice itself by the respondent herein. He also submitted that though the amount of LAB used in the manufacture LABSA 90% remains in the ratio of 1:1.47 both in the case of appellants own manufacture for sale as well as for conversion job of M/s A.R.Stanchem Pvt. Ltd., there is a difference in the amount of sulphuric acid used in the manufacture of appellant s own manufacture for sale as compared to the conversion job undertaken for M/s A.R.Stanchem Pvt. Ltd. This difference in amount of sulphuric acid is attributable to the fact that miniscule differ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g on behalf of the Revenue, justified the impugned order. 4. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 5. We observe that in production for the period 2010-11, LABSA 90% produced is 34832 tons. Besically, in their allegation, Revenue has accepted the yield of 1.47 for conversion job whereas they have defined the same as chemical process without any basis, which has been used for their own production and are being used for years together. We also observe that in the case of conversion job undertaken by the appellant, the raw materials received from M/s A.R. Stanchem Pvt. Ltd. in terms of the provisions of Rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 were converted into LABSA and by product Spent Sulphuric Acid and were returned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cess Acid Slurry and has proceeded on the erroneous assumption that appellant herein has manufactured excess quantity of Acid Slurry and clandestinely removed the same. The Department has nowhere alleged that they procured excess quantities of LAB to manufacture this excess quantity of Acid Slurry or LABSA 90% nor have the Department produced any evidence or referred to any materials to show how excess amounts of LAB were brought into the factory and how the same were removed after being manufactured into LABSA. In the premises, the allegation being leveled by the Department is highly illogical and not supported by any materials and/or evidence in the records of the case or without any basis whatsoever. 8. We also find that the demand st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
