9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (11) TMI 384X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts such as Benzene, Toluene, H.C.I. Caustic Soda, Nitric Acid L.D.O. etc. on the basis of quantities shown in the Central Excise invoices under which they were received in his factory even though it was evident that the full quantity shown in the invoices was not received in the factory. The appellant in his statutory records showed the quantity as indicated in the invoices though in the private records he indicated the correct quantity received. Further it appears the appellant was claiming compensation of amounts on the short received goods from the suppliers of the inputs. The Modvat credit taken on the short received goods was worked out to be Rs. 9,48,379.54. In the impugned order the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the demand for thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mfg. Co. Ltd. [1998 (97) E.L.T. 101 (Tribunal)] which is applicable to the facts of this case and that for the purpose of availing credit are Central Excise invoices and these invoices documents and these documents clearly show the amount of duty paid on the inputs. 5. The ld. SDR submitted that the private records maintained by the appellant clearly show the quantity received; that an assessee is entitled to take credit only when the inputs are received in the factory; that the appellant in the present case was claiming reimbursement from the supplier on the short received goods; that the case law cited by the appellant is only in respect of minor variation whereas in the present cases the variation is large and the Modvat credit on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y has been rightly denied. If the appellant s plea is to be accepted it would result in a situation where the factum of payment of duty on the inputs becomes the only important consideration even when Rule 57(G) speaks of inputs received in the factory. Such a construction is not possible. The credit has been rightly denied on the goods not received. 7. The Commissioner confirmed the penalty imposed under Rule 57I(4) read with Section 11AC. A part of the period involved in this case is prior to enactment of Section 11AC which came into force in September 1996. Mandatory penalty under Rule 57-I(4) read with Section 11AC, a composite penalty, is not permissible even in a case larger period of limitation is invoked. The ends of justice are m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
