TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (10) TMI 720
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....een filed by the appellant-assessee against the judgment and order dated 09.09.2003 passed by the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in E/501-503/0-C, E/997 & 1004-02-C of 2002. The Appeal Defective No. 54 of 2004 is the quantum appeal and remaining appeals are pertaining to the various penalties. On 19.08.2010, a Co-ordinate Bench has admitted the quantum appeal on following substantial questions of law:- "....(1) Whether in spite of the appellant having specifically pressed ground no.1 of the memorandum of appeal regarding process loss and the provisions of rule 57D which permits the process loss (waste) be not liable to be reversed for claiming the Modvat Credit; the Tribunal was not justified in overlooking th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....47/- with the equal amount of penalty for a period of August,1997 to August, 1999 against the appellant's company and imposed the penalty against the other appellants as per the details mentioned in the relevant orders. All the orders were confirmed not only by the first appellate authority but also by the Tribunal. Still being aggrieved, the appellants have filed the present appeals. With this background, Sri Bharatji Agrawal, learned Senior counsel assisted by Sri Piyush Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellants at the strength of written note submitted that the job work was done between 21st April, 1999 to 26th August, 1999, while the period in dispute is August, 1997 to 31st August, 1999 and August 2001 when the appellant has don....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ount books in the regular course and also maintained all the records. The show cause notices were issued to the appellant on the ground that the production shown by the appellants in RG-1 register are not proportionate to the raw materials issued and the production shown inasmuch as the production shown is lower than the raw materials issued which gives a suspicion for suppression of actual production. One Sri S.V. Giri was looking after the excise matters, he was out of the factory when the raid was conducted so entries could not be entered in RG-1 in the morning as he had gone to the Central Excise office located at 35km. away from the factory premises. Learned counsel submitted that the work in progress was totally ignored while arrivin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... suppliers. Regarding the process loss, the stand of the appellants is not legally tenable as the weight of the final product plus weight of wastage has to be equal to the total weight of input utilised in the manufacture of final products. From the details of the job work furnished by the appellants, it is evident that total raw materials received by them was equal to the total materials dispatched by them. So the computation shown by the appellants is not correct. The learned counsel for the department further submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Collector of Customs, Madras Vs. D.Bhoorman, 1983 (13) ELT 1546, had observed that the burden can be discharged by the department by bringing on record all the facts and circu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....weight of input used must be equal to the weight of finished product manufactured including wastage and that there is no process loss. The most vital evidence in the instant case is the job work done by the party for different customers from time to time. For example, raw material received from 21.4.99 to 26.8.99 is equal to 129430 kgs. and total material dispatched is equal to 129430 kg. It means the total weight of fabric/bags manufactured plus wastage will be equal to the total weight of inputs used for manufacturing. Regarding the weighment of bags, it appears that the department has adopted the best possible method i.e. bale weighment charts which means that the average weighment was done on the actual basis and not with hypothetical ....