9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 8X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rules, 2004 to various job workers and follow the procedure under Notification No. 214/86-CE dated 25.03.1986. On verification of the records, it was found that the job workers are not returning the scrap generated during the process of job work and it is also found that the job workers also were not discharging the duty there on in contravention of Rule 6 and Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2. As such the appellant was issued with the statement of Demand No. 03/2015 dated 01.05.2015 which was adjudicated by the Order-In-Original No.05/2015 CE dated 14.08.2015 by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Ranipet which confirmed duty demand of Rs.2,17,784/- along with interest and imposed a penalty of Rs.2,000/- under Rule 25 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has to be decided is as to whether the appellant who is the principal manufacturer and has sent these raw materials to the job workers for conversion in terms of Notification No. 214/86-CE dated 25.03.1986, is required to pay Central Excise duty in respect of waste and scrap generated at the job workers factories and cleared by the job workers without payment of duty for the disputed period. 7. The Tribunal Chennai vide its Final Order No. 41199/2024 dated 10.09.2024 has decided the issue in favour of the assessee. The Tribunal followed the earlier decisions passed in the appellant's own case by setting aside the demands raised. The relevant portion of the Final Order dated 10.09.2024 is as under:- "2. Following the above decisions, we a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant to pay the duty on the waste and scrap manufactured at the job worker's end. Further, the provision of Rule 4(5)(a) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 nowhere states that the waste and scrap generated at the job worker's end makes the principal manufacturer liable to payment of duty on such waste and scrap. The issue is settled in the appellant's own case for the earlier and subsequent periods vide Final Order No.41307/2017 dated 26.7.2017, Final Order No. 41710/2017 dated 18.8.2017 and Final Order No. 40621/2019 dated 28.3.2019. 4. The learned AR Shri S. Balakumar appeared for the Revenue and reiterated the findings given in the impugned order. 5. We find that the issue contained in these appeals have been consider ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l manufacturer liable to payment of duty on such waste and scrap. This position was also noted with approval in Final Order No. 40621/2019 dated 28.3.2019 in the appellant's own case. 7. In as much the legal issue involved in this appeal has already been settled, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeals with consequential relief, if any, as per law." 8. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the impugned orders and resultantly we set aside the same and allow the appeals with consequential benefits, if any, as per law." 3. The impugned orders are set aside. The appeals are allowed with consequential reliefs, if any. " 8. In view of the above, the Impugned Order dated 15.03.2016 of the Commissioner of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
