9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 113X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evidence - in this case, the investigation conducted has strengthened the case of the appellants since in the statements the concerned representatives have stated that the appellants were following the practice of storing goods received from manufacturers and traders separately and using them separately and at the time when verification was conducted only raw materials received from manufacturers was taken into account - In the absence of any contrary evidence unearthed during investigation other than arithmetical calculations, the order cannot be sustained – Decided in favour of Assessee. - Appeal No.E/148-150/2002 - Final Order Nos. 25523-25525/2013 - Dated:- 5-7-2013 - Mr. B.S.V. Murthy and Mr. Ashok Jindal, JJ. For the Appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dit under the erstwhile Central Excise Rules upto 01/08/1997. After the introduction of Section 3A under the Central Excise Act vide Notification No.23/1997C.E.(N.T.) dt. 25/07/1997, w.e.f. 01/09/1997, the final products of the appellants were subjected to excise duty on the basis of production capacity and the benefit of Modvat credit was withdrawn. The provision of Section 3A were withdrawn w.e.f. 01/04/2000. Consequently, appellants became eligible for availment of CENVAT credit w.e.f. 01/04/2000 under Rule 57AB of the Central Excise Rules. A circular bearing No.522/2000 (vide F.No.B.4/5/2000-TRU) dt. 31/03/2000 was issued by the CBEC which provided that CENVAT credit on the inputs/raw materials lying in stock with the re-rolling mills ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he said inputs lying in stock, on the basis of the duty paid documents. The officers attached to the Preventive Unit of respondent visited the Whitefield, Kolar and Hoskote Units of the appellants on 12 13/02/2001 and verified certain records relating to the availment of CENVAT credit. During the course of verification, certain documents were seized and statements of some of the officers of the company were recorded. Statements were recorded in which it was, inter alia, stated that the stock of raw materials received from traders were stored separately, were consumed immediately on receipt. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that denial of the CENVAT credit is on the ground if first in first out principle is followe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellants to show that the entire quantity available with them was the one received from the manufacturers only and in the absence of separate accounts being maintained, the first in and first out principle followed was correct. However, he also submits that the Departmental officers had not verified as to whether the quantity received was from the manufacturers or not at the time of visit. 5. We have considered the submissions made by both sides. We find that the officers had visited and verified the stock for the purpose of availment of CENVAT credit. During such visit if they could not and did not verify whether there was any stock received from other than manufacturers and result was availment of CENVAT credit on the quantity declare ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
