9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (11) TMI 476X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... They availed Modvat credit on various inputs. They sent some of their inputs to their job workers, M/s. Kiran Biscuits and Foods Ltd., Hyderabad. Normally the inputs on which Modvat credit is taken are sent to the job workers under cover of challan as prescribed under Rule 57F of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. While sending the above inputs the credit taken is reversed. However, on the basis of investigation, it was found that the appellants had removed substantial amount of modvatable inputs to their job worker without reversing the Modvat credit. Proceedings were initiated against the appellants. The Commissioner in the impugned order demanded an amount of Rs. 20,99,800/- under Rule 57-I of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with provis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that they did not tally with the records at the receiving end, i.e. the job worker s premises. Moreover the appellants had not taken Modvat credit in respect of certain inputs purchased from open market and sent to the job workers as there were no duty payable documents. In these circumstances there was no need to follow Rule 57F(4) procedure in respect of such inputs. In the personal hearing before us, ld. Advocate contended that they can provide clear evidence to establish their contention by way of the reconciliation statement which has been ignored by the adjudicating authority. He said that in order to buy peace with the Department, the appellant voluntarily reversed an amount of Rs. 6,60,840/-. The solvents removed by the appellants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion to penalty imposed on the company. Ld. Advocate relied on the Tribunal decision in case of Tirupati Granites Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Kandla - 1995 (78) E.L.T. 301 (Tri.) and also in case Sandvik Asia Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune - 2003 (159) E.L.T. 828 (Tri. - Mumbai). 5. Ld. SDR contended that the case against the appellants is not only based on records recovered from the job workers but also on the inculcator statements of S/Shri M. Ravindra Rao and V. Krishna Prasad. Therefore he opposed in giving any relief to the appellants and prayed for dismissal of the appeals. 6. After considering the rival submissions and also the relevant records, we find that some of the inputs sent to job workers were receive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
