Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether duty could be demanded on the alleged excess burning loss arising in job work on the basis of SION norms when the scrap sent for processing was returned as finished goods and there was no evidence of diversion.
Analysis: The scrap was admittedly sent to the job worker under permission and the entire quantity was processed and returned as brass rods. There was no finding that any scrap, resultant goods, or physical waste was diverted or clandestinely removed. The demand rested only on a theoretical comparison with permissible burning loss under SION norms. In job work, actual process loss can vary depending on operational factors, and SION norms are only theoretical norms framed for import-export purposes. On the facts, the differential burning loss could not by itself justify duty demand.
Conclusion: The demand on the alleged excess burning loss was unsustainable and is held against the Revenue.
Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed because the duty demand was based on theoretical norms rather than proof of diversion or clandestine removal.
Ratio Decidendi: Duty cannot be confirmed on alleged excess process loss in job work merely by applying theoretical SION norms absent evidence of diversion or clandestine removal of inputs or resultant goods.