2004 (12) TMI 699 - AT - Central Excise

CESTAT Mumbai: Duty on waste & scrap waived for job workers

LA PRENCA INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MUMBAI-V

LA PRENCA INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MUMBAI-V - 2017 (346) E.L.T. 412 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues:1. Whether waste and scrap arising during the manufacturing process should be cleared on payment of duty or can be cleared to job workers for conversion.2. Whether duty demand on waste and scrap is justified.3. Whether duty demand on inputs not received back within the prescribed period is justified.4. Imposition of penalty in case of setting aside duty demand.Analysis:1. The main issue in this case is whether the waste and scrap generated during manufacturing, specifically in the production of pistons and gudgeon pins, should be subject to duty payment or can be cleared to job workers for conversion. The Tribunal considered conflicting decisions but ultimately relied on the Wyeth Laboratories Ltd. case, which clarified that the choice between Rule 57F(2) or 57F(4) provisions lies with the assessee. Therefore, the demand for duty on waste and scrap was deemed unjustified.2. The Commissioner had confirmed a duty demand of &8377; 35,34,255 on the appellant, citing the requirement to clear waste scrap on payment of duty. However, the Tribunal found that the Wyeth Laboratories Ltd. case settled the issue, emphasizing the assessee's discretion in choosing the applicable rule. Consequently, the confirmation of duty demand on waste and scrap was deemed unwarranted.3. Another aspect of the case involved a duty demand of &8377; 4,81,446.59 due to inputs not being received back from the job worker within the prescribed period. Despite the delayed return of goods, it was established that the inputs were eventually received back. Moreover, provisions in the Modvat Rules allow for the extension of the period under Rule 57F(2) by the Assistant Commissioner. As the inputs were ultimately returned, the Tribunal found no justification for imposing duty on the same.4. Since the Tribunal set aside the demand for duty, the question of imposing a penalty did not arise. The Tribunal ruled that in the absence of duty liability, the penalty was also not applicable. Therefore, the penalty was also set aside along with the duty demand. In conclusion, the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant, providing consequential relief.This judgment, delivered by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI, clarified the treatment of waste and scrap, duty demands on inputs, and the imposition of penalties in the context of central excise rules, offering significant insights into the interpretation and application of relevant provisions.