TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (6) TMI 445
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ells and parts thereof, which are classifiable under heading No. 8507 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. For want of adequate facility to manufacture Silver Nitrate, they send raw materials like semi-processed silver material, silver scrap, life expired cells, nitric acid etc. to job workers at Calcutta and Bombay to manufacture Silver Nitrate availing the facility of Notification 214/86-C.E., dated 25-3-86, as amended. On the basis of the undertaking given by the main applicant, the job workers did not discharge duty on Silver Nitrate, an excisable commodity falling under Central Excise Tariff Heading No. 2843 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 manufactured by them, and returned the said Silver Nitrate, to the main applicant. The Silver Nitrate is converted in the main applicant's premises into silver powder by treating it with an alkali. The silver powder is, in turn, used mainly in the manufacture of silver batteries exported under bond, and occasionally in the manufacture of torpedo batteries supplied to Navy, which are totally exempted. The SCN has proposed, accordingly, to demand a duty of Rs. 43,08,829/- on a quantity of 4,021.1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the aforesaid process of manufacture, gets recycled again and again by getting sent back to the job workers for manufacture of Silver Nitrate. It was pleaded that if such abatement is not granted, there will be a cascading effect. The second factor on which reduction is sought related to the quantum of margin of profit added to determine the assessable value of Silver Nitrate, in the absence of any transaction value. It was contended that though the SCN has adopted the margin of profit of the main applicant to determine assessable value of Silver Nitrate, under law only the margin of profit of the job worker should have been reckoned. 6. On the other hand, the Joint Commissioner representing the Revenue questioned the claim for abatement of the quantity of silver nitrate to be charged to duty on account of waste, since the said waste arises after receipt of the Silver Nitrate from the job worker's premises and after it is put to use in the manufacture of torpedo batteries in the premises of the main applicant. However, the Joint Commissioner was fair in admitting that the margin of profit to be added would be that of the job worker alone in terms of the decision of the Apex ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al liability can be allowed by the Commission. On the other hand, the application filed by the main applicant implies acceptance, which was also explicitly stated against entry 12 (additional Amount of duty disclosed and accepted as payable) of Form No. SC(E)-1 prescribed for applying to the Commission, of duty due from him in the proceedings sought to be got settled. The said application has also been allowed by this Bench vide Admission Order No. 22/2002 (CEX) dated 25-9-2002 referred to above. Hence, the present pleas relating to dutiability on the product covered by the SCN and chargeability of the same from the main applicant are, prima facie, irrelevant, and belated and unacceptable. As the main applicant themselves admit to pay duty, their remaining pleas are not dealt with by this order. 9. As for the claim for adoption of margin of profit of job worker, their plea is already conceded by Revenue during the hearing on 26-5-2003. 10. As for the question of processing loss, the Bench had after the Admission Order dated 25-9-2002, directed the Commissioner (Investigation) attached to this Bench, to enquire into various facts relating to the said loss including the s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....b worker. Therefore, duty became chargeable on the quantity and value of the said goods, as removed from the job worker's premises. Therefore, the plea of the applicant to give abatement towards subsequent processing loss that occurred in their premises after the receipt of the excisable goods, namely Silver Nitrate, from the premises of the job worker, is not tenable. It is also interesting that the applicant himself has sought for determination of assessable value pf Silver Nitrate taking into account the margin of profit of the job worker, thereby conceding that the manufacture of the said Silver Nitrate was by the job worker alone and, therefore, his simultaneous claim for abatement to the extent of loss (of Silver Nitrate) during its subsequent use in the applicant's premises is not convincing. The said request merits, therefore, only rejection. The applicant has also admitted even in their Consultant's letter dated 28-5-2003 that if the Commission feels the duty to be paid by them is different from that admitted by them, they would discharge the same. Accordingly, the Bench holds that the duty leviable would be Rs. 36,20,074.29 as re-worked by Revenue during the hearing on 26....