TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (8) TMI 516
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs under Rule 173Q(1)(bb) of Central Excise Rules and also invoking the provisions of Section 11AA for interest on appellants. 2.  Briefly stated, vide show cause notice issued on 20-8-1989, it has been alleged that the appellant have contravened Rule 57J(3) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 inasmuch as they availed excess credit amounting to Rs. 23,34,474/- than admissible to them in terms of inputs contained in intermediate products received in their factory. It was further observed that in order to carry out the job work under Rule 57J of the rules, the appellants were required to give intimation to the jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner of their job workers with a copy to the jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1000 Kg. of input is sent to job worker and 900 Kg. of intermediate product is returned to the appellant factory, they assume that 100 Kg. has been the waste, and accordingly, they pay up duty on 100 Kgs. of waste. Further on receipt of the intermediate product, they take Modvat credit on 1000 Kg of input. Shri Gunashekharan explained that during this process, they avail of the facilities provided under Rules 57J, 57F(4), 57F(5)(ii) and Notification 214/86 as amended by Notification 60/97. He also pointed out that the period under consideration is February 1999 to July 1999. By taking me through the relevant portions of the aforesaid Rules and notification, Shri Gurashekharan explained that they have been doing everything as per law and th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ste. With reference to paras (viii) & (ix), he pointed out that it is only a procedural requirement and that in any case intimation was given to the Range Superintendent. Further intimation regarding M/s. Pushpa Industries as job-worker was given on 3-2-1997. 5. Shri Gunashekharan summed up by saying that all substantive requirements were complied with and everything was done with the authority of Rule & Law, and therefore the lower authority should not have confirmed the demand. He also stated that there is no cause whatsoever, in the absence of any suppression of facts or misdeclaration, for imposing penalty. He therefore requested for allowing the appeal. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions of the appellants both w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uty on waste generated at job worker's factory, I further find that Rule 57F(5)(ii) provides that no such waste is required to be returned in the factory of the manufacture of final products if the excise duty payable on such waste is paid. Here, I find that the appellants had paid the excise duty on such waste; but Rule does not say that the excise duty has to be paid only by the job worker. Therefore, I find that there is nothing wrong in the appellants paying excise duty on waste. Further, I find that without going into the complications regarding quantification of the waste, the appellants have quantified the waste to be the differential amount between the quantity of original input and the quantity of intermediate product as has been e....