2002 (9) TMI 736

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the main appeal itself by waiving the pre-deposit of the above amount. 2. The allegation in the show cause notice is that TPL availed irregularly credit of specified duty paid on pacol catalyst used in the manufacture of LAB to the extent demanded in the notice inasmuch as the said input were never used in the manufacture of LAB as it was written off. The fact that this input was written off transpired from the entries appearing at page No. 170 of General Ledger 1996-97 where the pacol catalyst to the Extent of Rs. 6,86.513 had appeared on the debit side of the general ledger and these entries were appearing under the account Catalyst Written Off . 3. Ld. Counsel Shri Ignatius submitted that this is only a clerical mistake and the cler .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d. Counsel submitted that the manufacture of LAB and pecol catalyst is used as a catalyst and the same is used in the manufacture of LAB. Once used it is taken out and this is known as spent pacol catalyst. This spent pacol catalyst is used further for recovery of platinum first by way of treatment and then by way of refining. He further submitted that Tamilnadu Petroproducts do not have the facility to recover platinum and they send the spent pacol catalyst to a job workers that is HPL and the spent pacol catalyst is sent the cover of a challan and HPL treats the spent pacol catalyst and then refine it. They return platinum in the form of sponge to the appellant. The appellant have a system of getting bank guarantee from the job workers. T .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n amount of Rs.6,71,703/- has been correctly accounted in HPL Account and Rs. 14,810/- have also been correctly accounted as bank guarantee renewal charges account. In view of the above submission ld. Counsel submitted that it was only a clerical mistake and there is no evidence with the department that the input as such namely pacol catalyst have been removed clandestinely. He therefore submitted that the impugned order may be set aside. 4. Heard Ld. DR Shri A. Jayachandran who submits that the whole demands is based on their account and they themselves have indicated that the input pecol catalyst has been written off. There is no separate account for spent pecol catalyst. Therefore he submits that the impugned order is required to be up .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X