Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2010 (5) TMI 724

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... appellant company under Section 11AC ibid and penalty of Rs. 5 lakh on Shri Satish Batra, Director of the appellant company imposed under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, upheld by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Noida vide Order-in-Appeal Nos. 293-294-CE/APPL/NOIDA/09 dated 21-10-09 and also for stay on recovery of the same till disposal of the appeals. 2. The facts leading to these appeals filed along with stay applications are, in brief, as under :- 2.1 The appellants manufacture plastic moulded parts for CTVs, washing machine and refrigerators, which are chargeable to duty under sub-headings 8529 9090, 8450 9010 and 8418 9900 respectively of the Central Excise Tariff. They also avail the facility of Cenvat cr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... as in the cases where the inputs received from the customers for manufacture of components on job work had not been used and the materials was required to be returned, and instead of returning the material originally received from the customers, the same material acquired by the appellant company, on their own account, for their own use, and in respect of which Cenvat credit had been taken, had been returned, the appellant company would be required to pay an amount equal to Cenvat credit taken in respect of those inputs. It is on this basis that a show cause notice was issued for recovery of duty amounting to Rs. 41,46,413/- along with interest, imposition of penalty on the appellant company under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act and als .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sed and the appellant decided to return the same, the same had been returned and there is no dispute that the material returned to the customers was the same as the material which had been received, even if it may not be from the same lot, that in most cases, the material returned to the customers was the one which had been received from them, as the inputs received from different customers for job work are issued for processing and are stored near the machines separately, that in any case there is no conclusive evidence with the department to prove that the material returned to the customers was the one which had been purchased by the appellant company for manufacture on its own account and in respect of which Cenvat credit had been taken .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mentioned that as per the stock position statement of the appellant as on 14-10-04, while the quantity of the inputs as on 1-10-04, as per WIP file was 338 Kg. and between 1-10-04 to 14-10-04, no inputs had been received for job work as per the MR register, on 14-10-04, 1820 Kgs of inputs had been returned as such to the customers while the quantity received upto 14-10-04, other than job work was 500 Kgs, which shows that the bulk of 1820 Kg of material returned to the customers was out of material purchased by the appellant on their own account and in respect of which Cenvat credit had been taken. In view of this, Shri Soni pleaded that this is not a case for waiver from the requirement of pre-deposit. 6. We have carefully considered th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed to the customers and were the same material which had been received, though may be from a different lot, in our view, it does not make any difference whether the returned material was from the lot purchased by the Appellant for their own use or was the material originally received from the customers for job work, as, even if the material returned to the customers was from the stock of inputs purchased by the appellants for their own use and in respect of which Cenvat credit had been taken, and on this basis duty equal to the Cenvat credit taken is charged on the material returned to the customers, in such a situation, in respect of the material received from the Customers for job work, which would not be returned and would be used by the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates