TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (5) TMI 598
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ight which is equivalent to total input supplied by the appellant. The case of the department is that in the process there is loss and on such quantity of process loss the duty is required to be paid. 2. Shri Dhaval Shah, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that this issue in appellant's own case has been decided in their favour vide Order No. A/12507/2021 dated 16.11.2021 wherein the demand was dropped. 3. Shri Vijay G Iyengar, Learned Assistant Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the finding of the impugned order. 4. I have carefully considered the submission made by both sides and perused the records. I find that even though the job worker has returned the equal quantity of the good....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Commissioner has prescribed the manner in which the duty liability has to be discharged vide Trade Notice 38/02 wherein he has fastened the duty liability on the principal manufacturer rather than on the job worker. The waste and scrap Is generated during the course of the job work and it is the Job worker who is the manufacturer of waste and scrap under the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and the liability to pay duty is on the person who produces or manufacturer any excisable goods in terms of Rule 4 of the said rules and duty liability has to be discharged in the manner provided for in rule 8 of the said rules. The liability to pay excise duty and the manner of payment of duty are governed by Rules 4 and 8 of the Central Excise Rules. They....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ctured the waste and scrap. In case, the department wanted to recover duty on the waste and scra, then the demand should have been raised on job workers as has been held in Alucast Foundries (Supra) 5. Further, In the case of the appellant decided by CESTAT Ahmedabad on 23.01.2013 (2013-TIOL-629-CESTAT-AHM) following has been held: 10. 1 find that both the lower authorities have not accepted this fact and held that the provisions of Rule of 4(5)(a) of CENVAT Credit Rules envisages the receipt of entire goods back from the job workers. In my view, the said findings are not in consonance with the law as has been laid down by the Tribunal in the case of Bharat Radiators Ltd (supra), Vema Metal & Conductors Ltd (supra), Tata Motors Ltd (sup....