9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 171X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emand with inclusion of scrap value on the job worker alongwith interest and penalty by the Adjudicating Authority that got confirmed in the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), as referred above, is assailed in this appeal. 2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, is that Appellant is a manufacturer of rolled products of Iron & Steel and it also had undertaken job work of the same for other manufacturers/suppliers on receipt of inputs free of cost from them. The disputed period relates to manufacture of rolled products on job work basis by the Appellant for Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL). On received of raw material from SAIL, Appellant had manufactured rolled products and cleared the same either to the depot of SAIL or to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .) demand has been set aside and in the other appeal, the period of dispute relates to January, 2011 to October, 2012, during which period, Rule 10A of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 has already been brought into the statute book. He further submitted that since the Appellant had discharged duty on the value at which the principle manufacturer SAIL had sold its product to the customers, the issue is squarely covered by the judgment of Scrutech Tubes (I) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pune-II as reported in 2017-TIOL- 3859-CESTAT-MUM besides the fact that demand would otherwise not be sustainable in view of Rule, 4(5)(a) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 had input supplier followed the alternate procedure of sending inputs under Rule 4(5)(a) and App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of scrap need not be includable in terms of alternate procedure of Rule 4(5)(a) that got final affirmation by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 6. We have gone through the case record and took note of the submissions. We must bring it on record that plethora of decision being passed after the judgment of R.R. Rolling Mills Ltd. in which consistent findings was that value of scrap need not be included in the assessable value and Appellant had rightly placed the following judgments namely SRF Limited Vs. CCE reported in 2007 (220) ELT 201 (T) Affirmed by Supreme Court at 2016 (331) ELT A138 (SC), Ghatge Patil Industries Vs. CCE reported in 2015 (320) ELT 646 (T), Automotive Stampings and Assemblies Vs. CCE reported in 2019 (5) TMI 1169-CESTAT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
