TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (7) TMI 157
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to send brass scrap to the job worker was conversion into brass rods. From the scrutiny of the records, it was found that permissible burning loss was 5% & 7.5% whereas the average burning loss during conversion was shown as 15%. On being pointed out the appellant calculated the duty liability on the excess burning loss and paid the same i.e. Rs. 948357/- along with interest. As regard the demand of Rs. 426843/- on different issue the appellant is not contesting and the same was paid along with interest, therefore the same is not subject matter of the present appeal. The adjudicating authority upheld confirmed the demand on the difference of burning loss between the 15% and permissible 7.5% therefore the appellant is before me. 2. Shri Ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... this Tribunal in the case of Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik - 2017 (349) E.L.T. 299 (Tri.-Mumbai). He also submits that the demand is time barred for the reason that the appellant have been sending brass scrap under the cover of challan in terms of Rule 4(5) (a) of Cenvat Credit Rules, for which the permission was sought from the department, therefore the demand is hit by limitation as there is no suppression of fact. In this regard he relied upon the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Uniworth Textiles Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur - 2013 (288) E.L.T. 161 (S.C.). 3. Shri A.B. Kulgod, Ld. Assistant Commissioner (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the find....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g loss is 10% to 15% whether the 15% burning is higher side that is immaterial the only requirement is that whatever brass scrap sent to the job worker the same is processed and resultant goods were returned back to the appellant which is no disputed, hence no demand can be made from the appellant. The similar issue has been considered by the division bench of this Tribunal in the case of Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd. (supra) wherein the Tribunal has passed the following order: "4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the records. We find that the demand was confirmed on the 16% process loss on the ground that this quantum is abnormal, however the Revenue could not produce any evidence to show that t....