9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 943X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nding 06/2011 on 9.7.2011 for the goods manufactured and cleared during April 2011 to June 2011. During the scrutiny of the said quarterly ER-3 return filed by them, it was observed that an amount of Rs.2,76,068/- was shown to have been taken as CENVAT credit in CENVAT abstract during the said quarters. However, on scrutiny of the document on whose strength the credit was taken, it was found that the duty paid on M.S. scrap was taken as credit. Since the scrap is not an input for manufacture of dish ends and not eligible for CENVAT credit a detailed study of the issue was taken up and the same revealed that the said invoice is issued by M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. (BHEL) in the name of the assessee vide invoice No.HY-SA-1-400032 date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ingly, he dropped the proceedings. On an appeal filed by the Revenue, Commissioner (A) in the impugned order held that the original adjudicating authority erred in coming to this conclusion. He observed that he should have investigated as to whether MS plates which were purchased by the assessee which according to them was left over and according to BHEL was waste was correct or not and whether it was in reality could have been used in the manufacture of dish ends. Further, he also observed according to Notification No.214/86-CE dated 23.5.1986 under which the materials were sent by BHEL, the material should have been returned to BEHL and therefore there is a violation of the condition of the Notification. On these grounds, the Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tention was accepted by the original adjudicating authority, who did not feel the need for any investigation. However, when the department filed an appeal, the Commissioner (A) came to the conclusion that the verification / investigation which was not felt as a necessity at the time of issue of show-cause notice or at the time of adjudication by the original adjudicating authority was required. This conclusion was reached only because he did not believe the assessee. The whole system of collection of indirect taxes is based on the trust placed on the assessee and the assessee has to do the self-assessment and considering whether a particular item is input or not, whether credit is admissible or not, and same can be used or not is a part of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d point taken up by the Commissioner (A) that goods should have been returned, in my opinion, when the assessee purchases the leftover materials (scrap in the eyes of BHEL) from BHEL, the obligation under Notification No.214/1986 in respect of the assessee as well as BHEL can be said to have been fulfilled. Even though learned AR vehemently argued against this observation, I feel that this interpretation of Notification No.214/1986, in the facts and circumstances of this case, are correct and there is no need to go into further discussion on this issue especially in view of the fact that no contrary precedent judicial pronouncement covering this type of issue and taking a contrary view has been produced before me. 7. Under these circumstan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
