9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (6) TMI 671X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the goods are diverted, rest of the particulars were available. Difference in description and quantity between bill of entry and Lorry Receipt(LR) – Held that:- Assessee’s explanation is acceptable that Phenol’s weight has increased due to addition of water since it cannot be transported as such – as there is no indication that investigation or verification was made to see whether the goods received by the appellant was not Phenol at all – against revenue. - E/1449 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 2-5-2012 - Mr. B.S.V. Murthy, J. For Respondent : Shri Rajendra Nagar, AR Per : Mr. B.S.V. Murthy; The facts of the case in brief are that during the course of audit for the period December 2007 to December 2008, it was noticed that a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, one in Vapi and another in Ankleshwar. According to the submissions of learned counsel, the Vapi unit does not use Phenol at all for any of the operations and has no requirement of Phenol. Therefore, highlighted Phenol which was discharged could not have gone to Vapi at all as there is no need at the factory. Further, it was also submitted that both the Superintendents in charge of the Vapi unit as well as Ankleshwar unit have verified and it has been confirmed that goods were received in Ankleshwar unit only and no credit was taken in Vapi unit. In any case, this is not the allegation in the show cause notice. Learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited vs. CCE, Bhopal -- 2011 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... show cause notice, I find that in the show cause notice in Para-2 it has been mentioned that the invoices/ bill of entry was not in the name of appellant. It was the only ground taken in the show cause notice for denying the cenvat credit. In any case, the explanation offered by the appellant appears to be reasonable. Further, there is no indication that investigation or verification was made to see whether the goods received by the appellant was not Phenol at all. If there was a shortage, it is understandable that appellant is required to explain but unfortunately in this case appellant has received excess quantity which is explained by saying that water was added. Under these circumstances, on merits as well on legal grounds I am unable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
