Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S.Century Metal Recycling Pvt.Ltd vs Cce, Delhi-Iv on 24 August, 2016
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
SCO 147-148, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH-160017
SINGLE MEMBER BENCH
Court-I
Appeal No.E/60754-60755/2013
[Arising out of the OIA No.133-134/CE/APPL/DLH-IV/2013 dt.19.9.13 passed by the CCE(Appeals), Delhi-IV, Faridabad)
Date of Hearing/Decision: 24.08.2016
For Approval & signature:
Honble Mr.Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
1.
Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
No
2.
Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
No
3.
Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order?
seen
4.
Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities?
Yes
M/s.Century Metal Recycling Pvt.Ltd. Appellant
Shri B.B.Biswal, Deputy Manager
Vs.
CCE, Delhi-IV Respondent
Present for the Appellant: Shri R.P.Jindal, Counsultant Present for the Respondent: Shri Harinder Singh, AR Coram: Honble Mr.Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) FINAL ORDER NO.: 61233-61234/2016 PER: ASHOK JINDAL The appellants are in appeal against the impugned order demand duty on account of clandestine removal of the goods.
2. The facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of aluminium ingots. They procured duty paid locally and imported scrap. During the course of manufacturing of aluminium ingots, the aluminium dross/ash generated which is partly reprocessed in the factory and partly sent to the job worker M/s.B.S.Metals. The case of the Revenue is that the aluminium dross to the job worker for conversion of aluminium ingots which have been removed in the guise of aluminium dross/ash removed from the premises of job worker and they have received the goods and entered in the records. Therefore, the impugned proceedings were initiated against the appellants and duty was demanded alongwith interest and various penalties were imposed on the appellants.
3. Learned Consultant appearing for the appellant prayed that Shri Rattan Lal of M/s.B.S.Metal stated that the job worker has received the aluminium dross only. As the job worker has received the goods and the same has been manufactured and returned to the appellants and on discrepancy has been found, therefore, the duty cannot be demanded on the allegation of clandestine removal of the goods. Moreover, if the duty would have been demanded, it should be demanded from the job worker on account of clandestine clearance of aluminium ingots. It is his submission that the records have been maintained by them and aluminium ingots after manufacturing has been cleared on payment of duty. Therefore, the demands are not sustainable.
4. On the other hand, learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order.
5. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both sides, I find that the case of the Revenue is that the appellant has cleared the aluminium scrap in the guise of aluminium dross/ash. The case of the Revenue is not sustainable as the appellants have recorded all the transactions of the goods sent to the job worker either scrap or aluminium dross/ash, the same has been recorded in the statutory records. The appellant has received the goods out of that aluminium dross/scrap which has been cleared on payment of duty. In that circumstance, the allegation made in the show cause notice are not sustainable against the appellants, therefore, the impugned proceedings are not to be initiated against them.
6. In view of above discussion, the impugned order is set aside and the appeals re allowed with consequential relief, if any.
(dictated and pronounced in the court) (ASHOK JINDAL) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) mk 1