9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 302X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the removed TV sets with the received ones without verification with available records - Held that:- appellant simply paid the duty applicable at the time of removal of repaired TV sets taking a stand that the process undertaken by them amount to manufacture. In our view, having regard to the nature of the product, manufacturing process and activity undertaken by the appellant as per their own statement, the process undertaken on the TV sets received back cannot be considered as manufacture. Therefore, the appellant should have reversed the entire amount of Cenvat credit taken at the time of return of TV sets to their factory and not the amount payable on fresh removal of TV sets as duty during the relevant period. - Partial stay grante ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f receipt of TV sets could not be admissible. Therefore, the matter requires consideration. 3. The matter has come up before this Bench for the third time. The first time when the matter came up, taking note of the submission by the appellant that the appellant had maintained records for receipt of TV sets in their factory and dispatch thereof, learned A.R. was required to get a report. Since we were not satisfied with the first report, second report was called for. In the second report submitted today, it has been stated that none of the dealers who were supposed to have sent back TV sets had kept the records for verification and therefore no verification could be made at the end of dealers who had sent back TV sets to the appellant. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ilable. The matter requires to consider all the aspects. At this stage, we find that it was possible for the Commissioner to order a verification or require the appellant to submit a statement showing the date of receipt of TV sets and the date of dispatch of the same TV sets subsequently. Instead of getting the statement verified with the records available with the department, the statement has been dismissed without any verification. What is required as per Rule 16 of the Cenvat Credit Rules is that the appellant should account for receipt of the returned materials and dispatch of the same. Prima facie, we find that the appellant has not done so. In the absence of clear contrary findings in the impugned order or a detailed verification or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
