9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 787X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aware of the receipt back of the inputs after repair. The said Shri Vijay Sehgal has nowhere stated that the goods were not received back by the appellants. Otherwise also Shri Vijay Sehgal was not in the appellants service during the relevant period and as such was not in a position to make any submission. Apart from the above statement of Shri Vijay Sehgal which cannot be relied upon for the purpose enumerated above, there is no other evidence to show that the goods were not received back by the assessee. Admittedly, the appellants raised debit notes at the time of clearance of the inputs while sending them to the input manufacturer for rectification. The said debit notes were subsequently cancelled. In fact I find that demand stand r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re liable to pay the interest on the said Cenvat credit retained by them during the period of sending the inputs out and receiving the same back. The lower authorities would calculate the interest accordingly - Decided partly in favour of assessee. - E/2846/2010-SM(BR) - Final Order No. 56479/2013-SM(BR)(PB) - Dated:- 10-5-2013 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (J) Shri R.S. Sharma, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri V.P. Batra, A.R., for the Respondent. ORDER The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of telecommunication equipments and were availing the benefit of Cenvat credit in respect of inputs received by them. It so happened that during the period 1999-2000 to 2000-2004, they received certain inputs and entered th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the goods and same were cancelled subsequently on receipt of the rectified goods. The said charts along with debit notes raised at the time of clearance and the debit notes were cancelled on receipt back of the inputs are part of paper book filed by the appellants. 4. However, the lower authorities did not accept the same and again confirmed the demand. 5. After going through the said orders, I find that the lower authorities have mainly relied on statement of Shri Vijay Sehgal made at the time of personal hearing before the adjudicating authority wherein he has stated that he is not aware of the goods having been received back after repairs. Though the appellants grievance is that no statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant. Further, I note that the appellants having entered the inputs in their RG 23A Part I was duty bound to show the consumption of the same. If the appellants have returned the goods to the inputs manufacturer after making entry of the same in RG 23A Part I, it is not possible for them to show utilization of the same in the manufacture of their final product, which stand cleared on payment of duty. 7. For all the reasons recorded above, I find no justification for denial of credit to the appellant. However, learned advocate has fairly agreed that inputs involving credit of Rs. 3731/- were not received by them after rectification and the said debit notes raised by them was not cancelled. In view of the above, I confirm the demand of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
