TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 1267X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... E, NAGPUR [ 2014 (12) TMI 945 - CESTAT MUMBAI] where it was held that the appellant has discharged the duty liability on the scrap, which has been generated and the transaction could have been undertaken under Rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. If the appellant had followed the said procedure instead of paying duty, the question of inclusion or exclusion of value of the scrap would not have arisen at all. In these circumstances, the question of addition to value of scrap, is not sustainable. There are no merits in the impugned order - appeal allowed. - HON BLE MR. SANJIV SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) AND HON BLE DR. SUVENDU KUMAR PATI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri Rajesh Ostwal, Advocate along with Shri Aditya Jain, Charter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id goods. 19. In view of the above, I have no hesitation to conclude that in this case the value of the scrap retained by the job-worker should be included in the assessable value of the processed goods. Accordingly, I pass the following order. ORDER The appeal filed by the appellant is rejected and the impugned Order of the Lower Authority is upheld. 2.1 During the period in dispute, the appellants manufactured rolled products in job work basis for various customer such as Steel Authority of India Ltd. ( SAIL ), Bajaj Electrical Ltd. ( Bajaj ), Jyoti Structures ltd. ( Jyoti ), Larsen and Toubro Ltd. ( L T ), RPG Transmission Ltd. ( RPG ) and KEC International Ltd. ( KEC ). Revenue for the view that appellants have s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... where the sub-rules (i) (ii) are not attracted, the transaction can be covered to sub-rule (iii) of Rule 10(A). Accordingly, we set aside the impugned demand in respect of the transaction pertaining to M/s. SAIL. 5.3 As regards the transaction pertaining to M/s. KEC International and M/s. RPG Transmission Ltd., the demand pertained to the period April, 2007 to December, 2010, whereas the show cause notice has been issued only on 27-7-2011. Therefore, the demand for the period April, 2007 to June, 2010 would be clearly time barred and the demand cannot be sustained in law. We further see that the appellant has discharged the duty liability on the scrap, which has been generated and the transaction could have been undertaken under Rul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
