TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 598X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TRANSFORMERS LTD VERSUS C.C.E. S.T. -VADODARA-II [ 2021 (11) TMI 597 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD ] where it was held that issue decided in the case of M/S VOLTAMP TRANSFORMER LTD. VERSUS CCE VADODARA [ 2013 (11) TMI 1215 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD ] where it was held that There is also no binding clause in Rule 4(5)(a) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 that any loss of inputs by generation of waste and scrap has to be compensated by reversing equivalent credit taken on the virgin metal, demand if any on waste and scrap has to be raised against the manufacturer job worker and not upon the raw material supplier. The impugned order is not sustainable - Appeal allowed. - Excise Appeal No. 609 of 2012 – SM Excise Appeal No. 13706 of 2013 – SM - Final Ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty. The issue is no longer res integra as per the decision of this Tribunal in the appellants own case which is reproduced as under: 4. We have considered the rival submissions. We find identical issue has been decided earlier by the tribunal vide order No. A/11149/WZB/AHD/2013 dated 06.09.2013 wherein following have been observed. 4. Heard rival submissions and perused the case records. So far as the process of manufacture is concerned, there is no dispute that appellant is sending copper strips and rods to the job workers for drawing Into copper wires and certain waste is generated. It is claim that there is about 2% loss in the process of drawing wires either burning loss or physical waste. It is the case of the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sions. It provides for reversal of credit in case the credit has been taken wrongly. Therefore, under rule 4(6) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 only such conditions can be prescribed which are in conformity with Rules 4 and 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and not conditions which are repugnant or contrary to the provisions of these rules. In Fag Engineering case (supra), it was held that no duty liability can be fastened upon the principal manufacturer in case of non-receipt of goods in terms of rule 4(5)(a) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and the only consequence would be reversal of credit availed on the inputs in case goods on which credit has been taken and which has been allowed to be removed for job workd is not brought back within ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7 the following findings:- 7. We find that Tribunal in the case of Bharat Radiators (supra) held that the credit cannot be denied in respect of the process loss at the hand of job worker. In view of the above we find as the Revenue has not denied the fact that the quantity which was found short on account of processing hence the demand is not sustainable hence set aside. 11. I also find that Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CMC (India) (supra) in para 7 have recorded the following findings:- 7....Here, there is a concurrent finding of fact by both the authorities and there is no finding by the authorities to the effect that the loss occurred was unreasonable and both the authorities have also verified that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
