TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (11) TMI 597
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....they had availed Cenvat Credit of duty paid for further process on job work basis to various job workers. The job workers carried out the process of drawing and paper insulation/covering. Thereafter the goods were returned to the appellant on a "weight to weight basis". The arrangement between the appellant and job worker was that the weight of the goods returned should match with the weight of the copper strips, rods etc. sent by the appellant. It was alleged that during the process of job work involving drawing there may be some loss of weight but there will be gain of weight in the product to be returned due to weight of paper insulation/ covering. The SCN alleged that on an average approximately 2 % of copper was scraped during the vari....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the rival submissions. We find identical issue has been decided earlier by the tribunal vide order No. A/11149/WZB/AHD/2013 dated 06.09.2013 wherein following have been observed. "4. Heard rival submissions and perused the case records. So far as the process of manufacture is concerned, there is no dispute that appellant is sending copper strips and rods to the job workers for drawing Into copper wires and certain waste is generated. It is claim that there is about 2% loss in the process of drawing wires either burning loss or physical waste. It is the case of the appellant that under the provisions of Rule 4(5)(a) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, It is not obligatory to bring back the waste and scrap generated at the job worke....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... conditions can be prescribed which are in conformity with Rules 4 and 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and not conditions which are repugnant or contrary to the provisions of these rules. In Fag Engineering case (supra), it was held that no duty liability can be fastened upon the principal manufacturer in case of non-receipt of goods in terms of rule 4(5)(a) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and the only consequence would be reversal of credit availed on the inputs in case goods on which credit has been taken and which has been allowed to be removed for job workd is not brought back within the time period stipulated. The same legal position was held in the case of Rocket Engineering decided by this Tribunal as also by the Hon'ble Hig....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in respect of the process loss at the hand of job worker. In view of the above we find as the Revenue has not denied the fact that the quantity which was found short on account of processing hence the demand is not sustainable hence set aside." 11. I also find that Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CMC (India) (supra) in para 7 have recorded the following findings:- "7....Here, there is a concurrent finding of fact by both the authorities and there is no finding by the authorities to the effect that the loss occurred was unreasonable and both the authorities have also verified that the loss claimed by appellant was based on the records and it would not amount to clandestine removal of goods. Even otherwise, ....