9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (6) TMI 714X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mber (T)]. This is an appeal against the order of the Commissioner No. 50/Commr/CEX/BPL/2006, dated 2-1-2006. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The relevant facts, in brief, are as follows : (a) The appellant is a manufacturer of parts of electric motors, and generators, switchgears, transformer, threaded articles and unthreaded articles. The raw materials are MS plates, angles, sheets, squar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the level of previous years and whatever excess quantity of wastage shown should be treated as mere receipt of invoices without receiving that much quantity of raw materials and therefore, the credit taken was irregular and the same was to be denied. The percentage of scrap has been determined taking into account the weight of finished products received in numbers by BHEL during the relevant peri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cal to what have been manufactured in the later years. The presumption of the same wastage percentage for all types of parts manufactured and supplied by the appellants is, on the face of it, totally unjustified. He seeks setting aside the order of the Commissioner. 5. Learned DR defends the order of the Commissioner and reiterates the findings. He submits that no prudent man can accept the view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the raw materials has to be same. At any rate, there has been no investigation about any inflated wastage shown by them. The allegations in the show cause notice have been made without necessary investigation. Of course, the high percentage of wastage shown by the appellant during the years 2002-03 to 2004-05 throws up doubt but the matter should have been properly investigated. The appellant ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t been received at all but only invoices were received and credit taken illegally. Even if there was any manipulation by the appellants, we find that the department has failed to adduce any reliable evidence. We do not find any justification to sustain the order of the Commissioner and accordingly, the same is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief as per law. - - TaxTMI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
