2013 (11) TMI 1215 - AT - Central Excise

Job worker, not manufacturer, bears duty liability for waste & scrap under CENVAT Credit Rules

The Tribunal allowed the appeal by M/s Voltamp Transformers Ltd, holding that under Rule 4(5)(a) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, duty liability for waste ... Removal of goods from the premises of Job worker - Liability to pay duty as per Rule 4(5)(a) of Cenvat credit Rules, 2004 on Waste and scrap brought back and cleared - Condition of return of waste and scrap – Held that:- Following Mahindra Hinoday Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE Pune-I [2011 (9) TMI 139 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] - The principal manufacturer who has supplied the inputs as such or partially processed, to job workers for further processing cannot be fastened with the duty liability on the waste and scrap generated at the job workers premises and said liability falls on the job workers who have actually manufactured the waste and scrap. The loss on account of waste and scrap is only 2% which has not been argued to be unreasonable by the Revenue - There is also no binding clause in Rule 4(5)(a) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 that any loss of inputs by generation of waste and scrap has to be compensated by reversing equivalent credit taken on the virgin metal - demand if any on waste and scrap has to be raised against the manufacturer job worker and not upon the raw material supplier – Decided in favour of Assessee. Issues:1. Interpretation of Rule 4(5)(a) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 regarding waste and scrap generated during job work.2. Liability to pay duty on waste and scrap generated at the job worker's end.3. Applicability of judicial precedents in similar cases.Analysis:Issue 1: Interpretation of Rule 4(5)(a) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004The appellant, M/s Voltamp Transformers Ltd, argued that Rule 4(5)(a) does not require bringing back waste and scrap generated during job work. They cited judgments from CESTAT Ahmedabad and Mumbai Bench to support their stance. The appellant contended that waste and scrap generated at the job worker's end are not required to be brought back under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.Issue 2: Liability to pay duty on waste and scrapThe Revenue argued that as per Rule 4(5)(a) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, waste and scrap, if generated, must be brought back and cleared on payment of duty. The Revenue contended that the duty liability lies with the principal manufacturer rather than the job worker. The appellant relied on judicial pronouncements to support their argument that duty liability on waste and scrap generated at the job worker's premises should be demanded from the job worker, not the raw material supplier.Issue 3: Applicability of judicial precedentsThe Tribunal examined previous judgments, including one by CESTAT Ahmedabad and the High Court of Gujarat, to determine the legal position regarding waste and scrap generated during job work. The Tribunal referred to cases where it was held that duty liability on waste and scrap should be imposed on the job worker, not the principal manufacturer. The Tribunal emphasized that there is no obligation under Rule 4(5)(a) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 to compensate for the loss of inputs due to waste and scrap generated during the job work process.In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the appellant, M/s Voltamp Transformers Ltd, based on the interpretation of Rule 4(5)(a) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and the liability to pay duty on waste and scrap generated at the job worker's end. The decision was supported by judicial precedents that established the duty liability on waste and scrap should fall on the job worker rather than the raw material supplier. The judgment clarified the legal position regarding the treatment of waste and scrap generated during job work processes under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.