2026 (9) TMI 469

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t appeal is regarding excise duty on the scrap generated in job workers' premises. 3. The brief facts are the Appellant is manufacturing automobile parts falling under Chapter Heading 76 and 87 of first schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They were also availing the benefit of CENVAT credit in respect of inputs, capital goods and input services. The raw material namely alloy steel and semi-finished components are removed to job worker for job work like machining, grinding, etc. The wastes generated in the job work premises are not received back at the Appellant's premises and Appellant is not discharging the duty on the waste and scrap generated at the job workers' premises. Alleging nonpayment of the excise duty on the scra....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... during the course of processing of material sent by the appellant. Accordingly, duty amount of Rs. 1,22,74,812/- was confirmed with interest on the scrap generated at job workers' premises. Penalty was also imposed under Rule 25 and/or Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 4. Aggrieved by said order, an appeal was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals). Commissioner (Appeals) as per the impugned order dated 09.04.2018 found that the job worker has not paid the central excise duty on the scrap generated at their premises, hence Appellant cannot be made liable for the same, and the duty has to be recovered from the job worker and not from the Appellant. Accordingly, Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the impugned order and remande....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....MUM]. This decision is upheld by Hon'ble High Court of Judicator at Mumbai as reported in [2006-TIOL-442-HC-MUM-CX]. (ii) Kaytee Switchgear Ltd. Vs. CCE, Belgaum [2007-TIOL- 522-CESTAT-BANG] (iii) Emco Ltd. Vs. CCE, Mumbai III [2008-TIOL-1232- CESTAT-MUM] (iv) Fag Engineering (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Vadodara [2011- TIOL-2033-CESTAT-AHM] (v) Alucraft Foundries (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bangalore [2008- TIOL-2855-CESTAT-BANG] 7. Learned Authorized Representative (AR) for the respondent reiterated the finding in the impugned order and submits that though the matter was remanded, due to pendency of the appeal before this Tribunal, issue is kept in abeyance. Learned AR further submits that under the provisions of Rule 16....