9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (9) TMI 476X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which the Cenvat credit had been availed by the appellant. Admittedly, some shortages were found in the final product manufactured by the appellant. 2. The adjudicating authority, after due process of law, confirmed the Modvat credit of Rs. 13,18,425/- availed by the appellant in respect of input found short along with imposition of identical amount of personal penalty in terms of Section 11AC of the Act. Further, the demand of duty of Rs. 6,93,508/- stands confirmed in respect of clandestinely removed goods along with imposition of personal penalty of identical amount under Section 11AC of the Act. 3. Learned Advocate Shri M.C. Dhruve, appearing for the appellant does not dispute the removal of modvatable input and the findings of cla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t it is essential under this sub-rule that inputs or capital goods, on which CENVAT credit has been taken, should be removed under the cover of an invoice referred to in Rule 7. In the instant case, the inputs had admittedly been removed clandestinely without issuing any invoice. Therefore, the provisions of this sub-rule are not attracted in the instant case. Even if we were to assume for a moment that the said sub-rule 3(4) was applicable to the instant case, still no relief can be given to M/s. SAE on account of this sub-rule as they have failed to establish that the goods were actually sold at prices lower than the purchase prices. No doubt M/s. SAE have filed photocopies of affidavits purporting to have been sworn by Shri Paresh Amubha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any invoice, which is one of the essential documents for the purpose of Rule 3(4), we fully agree with the adjudicating authority that the benefit cannot be extended to the appellant on the basis of mere photocopies of the affidavits. We, accordingly, confirm the denial of Modvat credit, along with imposition of personal penalty. 7. As regards appellant s contention that the value of the clandestinely removed goods should be taken at the lower price instead of adopting the normal assessable value, we note that there was no invoice showing removal of above goods and the appellant s reliance on the affidavits of two persons cannot be accepted as the sale price of the said goods. Apart from a simple statement of the appellant that the goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
