Tribunal: Appellant not liable for duty on process loss during job work. Precedents support job worker responsibility.

The Tribunal held that duty on process loss during job work, being an invisible loss, cannot be charged to the appellant. Precedents established that duty liability for waste and scrap generated during job work falls on the job worker, not the principal manufacturer. As there was no unreasonable loss claimed by the Revenue and no requirement to compensate for waste and scrap by reversing credit, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

---

---

Issues involved:
Whether duty is required to be paid on process loss during job work where job worker returns equivalent quantity of goods supplied by the appellant.

Summary of Judgment:

Issue 1: Duty on process loss during job work

The appellant sent copper strips, rods, etc., to job workers for paper insulation process, availing cenvat credit. The job worker returned the total weight equivalent to the input supplied. The department claimed duty on the process loss. The appellant argued that a previous order in their favor supports their case. The Tribunal examined the issue and referred to previous decisions. It was held that process loss, being an invisible loss during job work, cannot be charged duty. The Tribunal cited precedents emphasizing that duty liability for waste and scrap generated during job work falls on the job worker, not the principal manufacturer. The Tribunal also highlighted that there was no unreasonable loss claimed by the Revenue, no clandestine removal of goods, and no requirement in the rules to compensate for waste and scrap by reversing credit. Relying on previous decisions and the appellant's case, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside based on the legal principles established in previous decisions and the specific facts of the present case.

---