9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 267X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecorded by the lower authorities, it is seen from the Chartered Engineer’s certificate that it gives the size of the former sheets/tundish, number of such items required, the quantity of steel required for manufacture which on verification could have revealed whether the appellants have taken the credits correctly or not. No doubt there is a procedural omission in view of the fact that the appellant should have indicated these items to have been manufactured and shown in their returns and claimed Cenvat credit. To that extent, the appellant can be found fault with. However, in the absence of any evidence of diversion of items on which credit has been taken and in the absence of any contrary finding to find that Chartered Engineer’s certific ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods as claimed by them. The Chartered Engineer s certificate produced by the appellants has been rejected on the ground that the Chartered Engineer s certificate was not supported by any documentary evidence. It has also been held that the Chartered Engineer s certificate was produced after more than one year. 5. I find that in this case the show cause notice was issued on 24-8-2010. I find that Annexure I to the show cause notice gives the details of name of supplier, the impugned goods on which credit has been taken, amounts of Cenvat credit taken, remarks and usage. Under the remarks column except for one item viz. C.I. bottom plate in the month of October, 2009, all the remaining items are shown as inputs. The show cause notice al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of such, they get utilized in the manufacture of their finished goods and therefore considered as inputs. Contrary to the findings recorded by the lower authorities, it is seen from the Chartered Engineer s certificate that it gives the size of the former sheets/tundish, number of such items required, the quantity of steel required for manufacture which on verification could have revealed whether the appellants have taken the credits correctly or not. No doubt there is a procedural omission in view of the fact that the appellant should have indicated these items to have been manufactured and shown in their returns and claimed Cenvat credit. To that extent, the appellant can be found fault with. However, in the absence of any evidence of d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
