2014 (3) TMI 558 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal Waives Pre-deposit & Stay of Recovery for Duty Demands on Scrap

The tribunal granted the appellant's request for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery concerning duty demands on scrap generated at job workers' ... Waiver of pre-deposit - Stay of recovery - Scrap generated at the premises of the appellant's job workers - Whether the assessee i.e., the supplier of inputs to be job worker is liable to pay Central Excise Duty on the scrap generated at the job workers end, which is not received back from the job workers within the specified time in terms of Notification No.214/86-C.E., dated 25-3-1986 as amended r/w Rule 4(5)(a) of CENVAT Credit Rules - Held that:- Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Commissioner vs. Rocket Engineering Corporation Ltd. [2006 (6) TMI 66 - HIGH COURT BOMBAY] has ruled out liability for the principal manufacturer to pay duty on the scrap generated at the job workers premises. The ruling of the Hon’ble High Court was rendered with reference, inter alia, to Rule 4(5)(a) of the CCR, 2004, which provision has been debated before me - Stay granted. Issues:1. Waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery sought by the appellant regarding adjudged dues on scrap generated at job workers' premises.2. Interpretation of Rule 4(5)(a) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 regarding the return of scrap to the principal manufacturer within a prescribed period.3. Comparison of the department's view with the decision in Commissioner vs. Rocket Engineering Corporation Ltd.: 2008 (223) ELT 347 (Bom.) regarding the liability of the principal manufacturer to pay duty on scrap generated at the job workers' premises.Analysis:1. The appellant filed applications seeking waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery concerning the duty demands on scrap generated at job workers' premises from March 2006 to January 2009. The appellant had taken CENVAT credits on inputs sent to job workers for manufacturing intermediate products. While the intermediate goods were returned within the stipulated period, the scrap was not. The department argued that Rule 4(5)(a) required the return of scrap to the principal manufacturer within the specified time. However, the appellant contested this based on the decision in Commissioner vs. Rocket Engineering Corporation Ltd., where the High Court ruled out the principal manufacturer's liability to pay duty on scrap not received back from job workers within the specified time.2. The Additional Commissioner (AR) supported the department's view, citing Rule 4(5)(a). The Hon'ble Bombay High Court's ruling in Commissioner vs. Rocket Engineering Corporation Ltd. was crucial, as it held that the principal manufacturer was not liable to pay duty on scrap generated at job workers' premises. Considering this precedent and the interpretation of Rule 4(5)(a), the tribunal found a prima facie case for the appellant. Therefore, the tribunal granted waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery until the final disposal of the appeals.3. The tribunal's decision was influenced by the High Court's ruling and the interpretation of Rule 4(5)(a) regarding the liability of the principal manufacturer for duty on scrap. The waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery was granted based on the understanding that the principal manufacturer was not obligated to pay duty on scrap generated at the job workers' premises, aligning with the decision in Commissioner vs. Rocket Engineering Corporation Ltd. The tribunal's decision provided relief to the appellant pending the final resolution of the appeals, considering the legal precedents and interpretations presented during the proceedings.