9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 391X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uestion of shortage or excess cannot be determined. Though an opportunity was given to the department to rectify this mistake, this has not been done - The department has neither accepted the figures of consumption of raw material during July 2004 as given by the respondent nor has made any effort to ascertain the quantity of inputs consumed on the basis of production of finished products - The approach of the department is absurd - in absence of any evidence showing clandestine removal it cannot be alleged that there was unexplained shortage of Cenvat credit availed input and the same had been illicitly removed without reversal of credit – Decided against Revenue. - Excise Appeal No. 924 of 2011 - Final Order No. 56563/2013 - Dated:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... department being of the view that the respondent have not been able to satisfactorily explain the shortage, issued a show cause notice for recovery of Cenvat credit of Rs.5,15,544/- alongwith interest and imposition of penalty. Matter was adjudicated by the Joint Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 05/4/06 by which he dropped this demand. This order of the Joint Commissioner was reviewed by the department by filing appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) vide order-in-appeal dated 20th March 2007 dismissed the Revenue's appeal holding that there was no shortage of the input and for arriving at this conclusion, he took into account the fact that while the entries regarding receipt of inputs in the RG-23A regist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he cenvated inputs had been removed clandestinely to evade the duty. Against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals), this appeal had been filed by the Revenue once again. In respect of the Revenue's appeal, the respondent have filed cross objection. 2. Heard both the sides. 3. Shri Nagesh Pathak, the learned Departmental Representative, assailed the impugned order by reiterating the grounds of appeal in the Revenue's appeal and emphasised that as discussed in detail in the order-in-original, the documents produced by the respondent showing the issue of raw material are manipulated document and no reliance can be placed on the same. He also mentioned that there were cuttings and over-writings in the RG-23A register. He, therefore, plea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere no entries regarding issue of raw material for the entire month of July, 2004. Though in course of denovo proceedings the respondent have produced issue slips and other evidence in support of their plea that during the period of July 2004 certain quantity of raw material had been issued for manufacture of finished product and that quantity matches with the alleged shortage, this evidence had not been accepted by the original Adjudicating Authority. However, I find that department does not dispute that during the period of July 2004, there was manufacture and clearance of finished product and for manufacture of finished product certain quantity of raw material must certainly have been used. Even if the adjudicating authority doubted the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
