9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 712X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e would expect that appellant would have informed the department as to how the closing balance or opening balance shown in the ER-1 returns were wrongly shown and why they were shown in that manner. The mistake becomes multiplied when we notice the fact that appellant had informed the Pollution Control Authorities and Port Authorities about the salvage activities but failed to inform the Customs Authorities or Central Excise Authorities to whom the returns were filed - the departmental officers cannot be found fault with for going by the documents submitted by the appellant - If the documents submitted showed a closing balance of 227.86 MT in the month of May and it became zero as opening balance in the month of June, prima facie the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellants, the actual quantity of salvage was only 273 MT and the balance 227 MT was not really available at all. In addition during the verification process, it was also found that the appellants had not paid full education cess and they had not reversed the credit taken in respect of a mobile crane cleared and sold by them. The appellant accepted the liability towards education cess and CENVAT credit on Hydraulic Mobile Crane and paid the amounts involved of Rs. 52,363/- and Rs. 1,29,533/- with interest. The balance amount of Rs. 3,37,962/- is the amount involved on 227.86 MT of scrap and the irregular credit availed on outward freight during the period from March 2008 to December 2008. The amounts involved respectively are Rs. 3,37,96 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o time it is difficult to understand how appellants came with the closing balance of 227.86 MT instead of showing it as zero in May. He submits that appellants were aware that the ship was submerged in the sea for 3 years and they will be aware of the consequences of ship being submerged in the sea for the 3 years. Therefore he submits that appellant has not made out a prima facie case as regards duty on scrap. As regards GTA service he submits that the appellant in the invoice clearly mentioned that place of removal is the shipyard and after the removal the transportation cost, insurance etc. are entered in the ER-1 account. Therefore the service tax credit of the tax paid on such GTA service is not available. Countering this the learned a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad informed the Pollution Control Authorities and Port Authorities about the salvage activities but failed to inform the Customs Authorities or Central Excise Authorities to whom the returns were filed. Therefore the departmental officers cannot be found fault with for going by the documents submitted by the appellant. If the documents submitted showed a closing balance of 227.86 MT in the month of May and it became zero as opening balance in the month of June, prima facie the appellant may be required to pay duty on this amount. The decisions cited by the learned counsel are not relevant since this is a peculiar case which on facts is not comparable to other cases. Therefore appellant has not made out a prima facie case in their favour. As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
