Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Don't have an account? Register Here
<h1>Tribunal Rules in Favor of Appellants, Deems Duty Demand Unjustified</h1> <h3>WINDALS AUTO (P) LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE</h3> WINDALS AUTO (P) LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE - 2012 (279) E.L.T. 298 (Tri. - Del.) Issues:1. Applicability of Rule 5(9) of Rule 4 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.2. Demand of duty due to failure to send back scrap.3. Revenue loss and procedural mistake.4. Interpretation of exemption under Notification No. 214/86.5. Sale of waste generated during job work.6. Justification for not sending back goods.Analysis:The case involved the Appellants engaged in job work for M/s. Larsen & Toubro Ltd under an exemption notification. The issue arose when waste generated during job work was sold by M/s. Larsen & Toubro to the Appellants themselves, leading to a notice from Revenue for not sending back the scrap as required by Rule 5(9) of Rule 4 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, and demanding duty. The Revenue acknowledged that there was no revenue loss, attributing the issue to a procedural mistake.During the proceedings, the advocate for the Appellants argued that since the goods were in their factory and M/s. Larsen & Toubro sold the waste to them, there was no obligation to return the goods. The Tribunal considered the arguments and concluded that there was no evidence of revenue loss, noting that the appropriate duty had been paid by M/s. Larsen & Toubro. The Tribunal found no merit in the lower authority's reasoning to support the demand for duty.As a result, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, emphasizing that the demand was unjustified due to the absence of revenue loss and the payment of appropriate duty by M/s. Larsen & Toubro. The judgment highlighted the importance of considering the specific circumstances and the legal provisions in determining the liability for duty, ultimately ruling in favor of the Appellants based on the lack of merit in the Revenue's arguments.