Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce Raipur vs M/S Malhotra Cables Pvt. Ltd on 2 November, 2015
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. IV
Excise Appeal No. E/3692/2010-E[SM]
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 143/CE/APPL/DLH/2010 dated 03.09.2010 passed by CCE (Appeals) Delhi-I]
For approval and signature:
Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)
1
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3
Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
CCE Raipur ...Appellant(s)
Vs.
M/s Malhotra Cables Pvt. Ltd. Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Ms. G.R. Singh (DR) for the Appellant Mr. Naveen Mullick (Advocate) for the Respondent CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing/ Decision. 02.11.2015 Final Order No. 54219 /2015_ Per S K Mohanty:
Brief facts of the case are that the Respodnent is engaged in the manufacture of wire and cables, falling under Chapter 85 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On 31.10.2005, the Central Excise officers visited the Respondents factory and conducted the stock verification. A statement was prepared on the basis of input-output ratio, taking copper as base material. It has recorded the shortage of copper and allegedly used in the manufacture of finished product cleared without payment of duty. The adjudicating authority confirmed the duty alongwith interest and penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order.
2. Heard both sides and perused the records.
3. I find that the Respondent claimed 2.5% losses. Revenue, in their grounds of appeal stated that the plea taken by the Respondent is after thought. I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the Department allowed the loss of input in respect of burning loss during the drawing process of copper rod into copper wire at the job workers premises. But the respondent claimed the loss of 2.5% on various processes such as, bunching, muzzling, shaping the wire to regular cross section etc. carried out in the Respondents factory. This fact was not disputed by the Revenue in their appeal.
4. The Honble Supreme Court in the case of UOI vs Indian Aluminum Co. Ltd., 1995 (77) ELT 268 (SC) held that certain quantity of raw material may be lost during the process of manufacturing of final product and exact mathematical equation between the quantity of raw material purchased and the raw material found in the finished product is not possible and should not be looked for.
5. In view of the above discussions, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal of Revenue is therefore dismissed. (Operative part pronounced in open court) (S. K. Mohanty) Member(Judicial) Neha 2 | Page E/3692/2010-Ex[SM]