2005 (7) TMI 447

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on inputs such as Aluminium Ingots. It was clearing the Aluminium Ingots under Rule 57F(4) to the job workers for manufacture of Aluminium Castings. The goods removed under 57F(4) challans were received back   after the job work was completed. The weight of the castings thus received did not tally with the weight of the Aluminium ingots sent under Rule 57F(4) because the appellant did not receive the waste and scrap from the job worker.  The allegation of the department is that when inputs are sent under Rule 57F(4) a manufacturer is supposed to receive back any waste and scrap which arises in the manufacture of goods in a job workers hands.  Since no evidence has been put-forth by the appellant company that such waste a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e and scrap has to be rejected at the out-set. Once the inputs are sent out for job work, an assessee is expected to get back the inputs was well as any resultant product that comes out as otherwise the resultant product, escapes duty even when the assessee has taken credit. It is for this reason the Rule provides that the waste and scrap that arises out of the input should also be either brought back are removed on payment of duty. Investigation revealed that the appellant company failed to produce evidence to establish that duty was discharged on dross, ash and residues. Since the appellants have not disclosed the fact that they were not receiving back the so called waste and scrap, larger period of limitation was invoked and duty on such....