9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 330X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he process rejection materials at the lower value than the purchase price for the purpose of finalization of account. Valuing at lower rate is not equivalent to writing of the value of inputs in the books of account. Thus on the finding, I hold that the proceedings initiated is due to mis-interpretation of the Rules - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No. E/88636/13-MUM - Final Order No. A/1304/2014-WZB/C-IV(SMB) - Dated:- 5-8-2014 - Anil Choudhary, J. For the Respondent : Shri Ashutosh Nath, Asstt. Commr. JUDGEMENT Per: Anil Choudhary: This appeal arises out of Order-in-Appeal no. P-II/AK/43/2013 dated 13.06.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs Central Excise (Appeals), Pune-II. The appellant have filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase price of such inputs. It was also observed in the show-cause notice that during earlier financial year, the appellant was showing the closing stock of inputs under three different heading namely, Raw material', in process' and scrap' in their balance-sheet/Form-3CD reports. However, it was observed that for the financial year 2010-11, the appellant have changed the practice of showing the scrap inputs in the stated category i.e scrap' and have shown such scrap inputs under the category of process rejection'. The appellant was asked to show cause notice vide notice dated 30.03.2012 as to why under provisions of Rule 3(5B) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, for not reversing the CENVAT credit availed on such process re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been taken is written off fully or where any provision to write off fully has been made in the books of account, then the manufacturer or service provider, as the case may be, shall pay an amount equivalent to the CENVAT credit taken in respect of the said inputs or capital goods. Accordingly, there being no case, nor the finding that the appellant have written off partially or fully, the impugned order is fit to be set aside and the appeal be allowed. 5. The learned AR relies on the impugned order and states that the valuation of inputs in the given facts and circumstances at a lower rate than the purchase value, amounts to writing off partially and accordingly, the impugned order is correct and the same be upheld. He further states th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said input. 6.2 In the present appeal, there is no such finding that the appellant have written off the process rejection inputs . The only finding is that the appellant have valued the process rejection materials at the lower value than the purchase price for the purpose of finalization of account. 6.3 Valuing at lower rate is not equivalent to writing of the value of inputs in the books of account. Thus on the finding, I hold that the proceedings initiated is due to mis-interpretation of the Rules. Thus, the appeal is allowed in favour of the appellant and the impugned order is set aside. The appellant will be entitled to consequential relief, if any, in accordance with law. (Dictated and pronounced in Court) - - TaxTMI - TM ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
