CROMPTON GREAVES LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the duty demand of Rs. 1,38,792/ - lakhs and penalty of Rs. 15,000/ -. Duty demand relates to scrap of copper/ferrous received by the appellant from their job worker.

(2.) THE facts leading to filing appeal are that the appellant received copper and iron sheets as inputs. These inputs are sent to the job worker for the manufacturing process. The job worker returned the processed goods along with the scrap arising during the process of manufacture to the appellant. Duty demand has been raised for the period from 1994 to 1996 under the impugned Order on the ground that the appellants had not kept separate account of scrap received from the job worker in the RG -1 register. In the absence of such separate accounting, it has been held that the appellant cleared the scrap in question without payment of duty. That finding is the basis for duty demand.

(3.) THE submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the practice followed by the appellant has been that the scrap received from job worker and the scrap arising during manufacturing in the factory are stored together and cleared after payment of duty. This position remains fully explained by the statement of Shri R.B. Raja, Manager of the appellant. There is nothing on record to take a view that the scrap received from the job worker was clandestinely removed and only the scrap generated in the factory was accounted in the RG -1 register cleared on payment of duty. The learned Counsel also submits that taking resort to proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act was not warranted in the present case inasmuch as there is no suppression of facts or mis -statement. This is merely a controversy about the accounting method followed by the appellant.