9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (12) TMI 388X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... They are availing the Modvat credit facility as provided under Central Excise Rules, 1944. The officers of the Central Excise Commissionerate, Delhi III visited the factory of the appellants on 17-9-99 and on examination of the Modvat records, it was found by the officers that the appellants have availed ineligible Modvat credit in respect of quantity of inputs not received by them from the manufacturer. Hence show cause notice was issued to the appellant for recovery of such excess credit availed by them. The appellants resisted the show cause notice on the ground that there is no case of non-receipt of the inputs in the factory premises. They also produced volumous records as regards the receipt of the goods in their factory. The adjudica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e factory premises on 17-9-99. It is the submission that the appellants had not produced these documents before the authorities; the same were produced subsequently after the issuance of show cause notice. It is also the submission that the records of dharamkanta and other private records produced by the appellant were of private nature and could not be considered. They also submitted that as regards the records of job work produced, it would be of no avail as that was not the issue before the lower authorities, hence this point is not considered by the lower authorities for coming to the conclusion that the appellants received inputs short and availed ineligible Modvat credit. 5. Considered the submissions. The issue is regarding the sho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 21-9-99 and 30-10-99. The job work challan and debit of 10% of the value of the goods in RG 23 Part II and recording of the same in Form V register were all statutory records maintained by the appellants, would mean that the appellant had kept the revenue informed of their activities. They cannot be considered as private records by the adjudicating authority. Both the lower authorities have summarily dismissed the contention of the appellants on this point without going into details for the reasons best known to them. It is also surprising to note that the learned adjudicating authority having received the said evidence from the appellants, did not consider it necessary to order a check up at the job worker unit, who incidentally falls wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
