9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (8) TMI 560X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nput from the factory premises but it is a case of temporary removal and storage of input in the adjacent factory premises, which is a sister unit of the appellant - The appellate authority has observed that they could have shifted the raw material outside their factory premises by issuing gate pass and reversing the credit and later on taking re-credit as and when they were in a position to bring the raw material back - It becomes clear that this is only a procedural lapse- Such inputs were duly accounted for by the appellant in their statutory record and as such, they were under a legal obligation to show consumption of the same - Conclude that they were removing the goods with mala fide intention, in the absence of any evidence to the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e duties were confirmed and penalties were imposed. 2. It is seen that the appellant took a plea to the lower authorities below that the appeal of Ms. Shubhlaxmi Industries, in the premises of which the inputs were stored, stand allowed by Commissioner (Appeals) vide his order No. NS/220-21/Daman/2005, dt. 25-4-05, wherein he has observed as under : Ownership of subject goods held by M/s. Shubhlaxmi Syntex Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Shubhlaxmi Dyetex Pvt. Ltd. has not been disputed but, in fact, it has been accepted by the Department. The impugned show cause notice also states that the said two units has availed Cenvat Credit on the basis of relevant invoices, which indicates that the inputs in question were accounted for in the records of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so, it is to be seen that the fact that the goods found in the premised of M/s. Shubhlaxmi Industries, are owned by M/s. Shubhlaxmi Syntex Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Shubhlaxmi Dyetex Pvt. Ltd. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that once the Cenvat Credit is taken on the raw material, there is no provision in the Cenvat Credit Rules to remove the input from the premises except after debiting of credit so availed. However, we find that this is not a case of clearance of Modvatable input from the factory premises. Admittedly, it is a case of temporary removal and storage of input in the adjacent factory premises, which is a sister unit of the appellant. The appellate authority has observed that they could have shifted the raw material o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
