Silicon Cortec Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Silicon Cortec vs The Commissioner of Central

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Oct 14, 2003

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/32666

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/32666
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: S T S.S.
Decided On: Oct 14, 2003
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Silicon Cortec

Respondent

The Commissioner of Central

Legal References

Reported In: (2004)(166)ELT473Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. appellants are engaged in manufacture of 'electric stamping, etc'.they manufacture such goods on raw material supplied by m/s crompton greaves ltd. goa on job work basis. raw materials/stampings were under rule 57f (4) provisions. dispute is demand of duty on 'scrap' arising during the course of 'job work' at the appellant's premises. duty demands have been made and confirmed on the appellants as duty payment on 'such scrap' through the appellants modvat accounts was not held to be proper. penalties were also imposed by the original authority without assigning any reason i) clearance of scrap is deemed to be on behalf of m/s crompton greaves ltd. ii) rule 57f(12) providing for payment of duty on waste would be restricted to 'waste'/scrap of the appellants and not on 'job work scrap' - that rule 57f(i8) also confiscate this.3. heard both sides and considered the material on record. it is found:- a) rule 57(12), 57f(12), 57f(8) and 57f(5) as relied upon by the original authority not in vogue with effect from 1.4.2000 while rule 57ab(l)(b) applicable from 1.4.2000 has a specific provision to cover utilization of credit on are final products scarp is a final product in as much as it is excisable and held no by a catena of decisions. b) since 'job worker' is a manufacturer of the 'waste', and final products. as a manufacturer waste arising from raw material of inputs on which he took modvat and removal and raw material received on job work cannot be differentiated since there is no one to one correlation. the inputs on which credit was availed and the final products on which 'debits' are made should be from same source of supply of inputs is not what vat or modvat is. the attempts of the lower authority to lay down that proposition cannot be upheld.

Full Judgment

1. Appellants are engaged in manufacture of 'Electric Stamping, etc'.

They manufacture such goods on raw material supplied by M/s Crompton Greaves Ltd. Goa on job work basis. Raw materials/stampings were under Rule 57F (4) provisions. Dispute is demand of duty on 'scrap' arising during the course of 'job work' at the appellant's premises. Duty demands have been made and confirmed on the appellants as duty payment on 'such scrap' through the appellants Modvat accounts was not held to be proper. Penalties were also imposed by the original authority without assigning any reason i) Clearance of scrap is deemed to be on behalf of M/s Crompton Greaves Ltd. ii) Rule 57F(12) providing for payment of duty on waste would be restricted to 'waste'/scrap of the appellants and not on 'job work scrap' - that Rule 57F(I8) also confiscate this.

3. Heard both sides and considered the material on record. It is found:- a) Rule 57(12), 57F(12), 57F(8) and 57F(5) as relied upon by the original authority not in vogue with effect from 1.4.2000 while Rule 57AB(l)(b) applicable from 1.4.2000 has a specific provision to cover utilization of credit on are final products scarp is a final product in as much as it is excisable and held no by a catena of decisions.

b) Since 'job worker' is a manufacturer of the 'waste', and final products. As a manufacturer waste arising from raw material of inputs on which he took modvat and removal and raw material received on job work cannot be differentiated since there is no one to one correlation. The inputs on which credit was availed and the final products on which 'debits' are made should be from same source of supply of inputs is not what VAT or MODVAT is. The attempts of the lower authority to lay down that proposition cannot be upheld.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Silicon Cortec vs The Commissioner of Central Same Subject Excise Same Judge S T S.S.