TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (6) TMI 1194
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the case are that the Appellant is a manufacturer of dutiable final product at its factory at Haldia operating under the Centvat Credit Scheme. The Appellant had cleared from its factory the inputs/semi processed goods i.e. Polymer Granules (PP and LLDPE) to various job workers under Rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules ('CCR') for manufacture of woven sacks and bags. Pursuant to an audit of records/job work register maintained by the Appellant, it was found that there was shortage in the receipt of the inputs/processed goods sent to the job workers. It is the case of the revenue that pro-rata credit should have been reversed by the Appellant on the quantity of inputs sent to the job worker but not received back within the period prescri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... H241) and articles of LLDPE (refer Item No. H356) notified for the plastic products. The Work Orders entered into with the job workers also provided for wastage/shortage of 10% for PP and 5% for LLDPE respectively. Reliance was placed upon the following decisions to contend that there was no requirement for reversal of credit in respect of such wastage/scrap generated at the job workers premises and not returned back to the manufacturer/supplier: (i) Emco Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-III [2008 (223) ELT 613 (Tri. Mumbai] (ii) Forgings (India) Iron and Steel Limited Vs. Commissioner of CGST & Excise, Howrah [2022 (11) TMI 793 - CESTAT, Kolkata] It was also contended that the job workers had in any event discharg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated 9 June 2006 passed by the Assistant Commissioner in the connected proceedings. In any event, the issue involved herein is also covered by the decision of this Tribunal in Emco Limited case (supra) set out below: "After hearing both sides for some time on the application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 23,33,697/-, confirmed on the waste and scrap generated at the job workers' end, against the supplier of inputs/appellant herein, on the ground that the job worker had not discharged duty liability thereon, we found that it was possible to decide the appeal itself at this stage as the issue in dispute is as to whether the principal manufacturer/suppler of inputs is liable to discharge duty in terms of Rule 57AC/Rule 4(5)(a) of ....