2016 (1) TMI 842

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....and 72 of the first schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.  Appellant sent material for job work to M/s. Mahindra Ugine Steel Co. Ltd.  After completion, the finished products were returned by Mahindra Ugine to appellant and the scrap was retained in the factory of job worker which were cleared on payment of duty.  The scrap should have been cleared on simple challans since it was returned to the principal manufacturer under Rule 4(5)(a) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.  The appellants have not lifted the scrap and raised the excise invoices since the scrap was generated in job work.  As per the appellant, duty was paid twice on the same scrap one by the appellant and one by the job worker.  Thus appellant h....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....held in CCE vs. Unique Auto Assemblies - 2007-TIOL-411-CESTAT-MUM that even unjust enrichment would not apply to refund of duty paid by the principal manufacturer on scrap generated at job workers premises since the scrap is not returned by the job worker to the principal manufacturer.  He further submitted in this case the job worker did not reimburse the duty to the appellant and relevant invoices were returned by the job worker without making payment and hence the incidence of duty was not passed on.  Appellant also produced a number of documents before the lower authorities but both the authorities rejected the refund claim on number of grounds as mentioned in para 6 of the impugned order. 5. On the other hand, ld. AR reiter....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er's end, is not reflected anywhere in invoices issued by the appellant. (vi) No accountal like challans sending raw materials to job worker, generation of scrap there from and duty paid thereon were produced, interalia, connecting duty payment vis a vis inputs supplied and scrap generated. (vii) On their own admission, the appellant prepared fake invoices under which no scrap was removed, put "road tempo numbers" on those invoices which were never put in for transportation and shown some imaginary quantity thereon and as a result, imaginary assessable value and imaginary duty payment. (viii) unjust enrichment in view of larger Bench pronouncement in case of Grasim Industries Ltd. vs. CCE [2003 (153) ELT 694 -T-LB]. I had further ra....