9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 869X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,202/- and ₹ 1,28,68,887/- respectively, the utilization of Cenvat credit for payment of duty on these dates was ₹ 9,67,124/- and ₹ 33,00,407/- respectively and Cenvat credit available was much more than the amount which was utilized for payment of duty and as such it cannot be said that there was short payment of duty. Just because the debit entry of the duty paid was made in RG-23A Pt. II register, it cannot be inferred that the appellant had short paid the duty. Similarly, in respect of Unit - II, the total Cenvat credit including capital goods Cenvat credit available as on 15/08/2000 and 31/08/2000 was ₹ 55,11,200/- and ₹ 48,92,898/- respectively while the utilization of the credit for payment of duty was & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... month of the last date of the month for payment of duty relating to second fortnight of the month. The allegation against the appellant is that while the appellant paid the duty for the first fortnight of August 2000 by utilizing the Cenvat credit of ₹ 9,67,124/-, as on 15/08/2000 they had the credit balance of only ₹ 7,88,006/- in the Cenvat credit account and similarly for payment of duty for the second fortnight of August 2000, while they utilized credit of ₹ 33,00,407/- on 05/09/2000, the Cenvat credit balance as on 31/08/2000 was ₹ 25,47,691/- and on this basis it is alleged that during August 2000 there is short payment of duty to the extent of ₹ 9,31,834/-. It is on this basis that the Additional Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s), these two appeals have been filed. 2. Heard both the sides. 3. Shri Amit Jain, Advocate, the learned Counsel for the appellant, pleaded that during the period of dispute, the appellants were maintaining separate Cenvat credit registers for inputs and capital goods, that total Cenvat credit in respect of inputs and capital goods in both the units as on 15/08/2000 and 31/08/2000 was more than sufficient for payment of duty, that the Department has looked at only the Cenvat credit balance in respect of the inputs, which is not correct, that the Cenvat credit in respect of capital goods also could be utilized for payment of duty and just because separate debit entry was not made in the capital goods Cenvat credit account, it cannot be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Cenvat credit including the capital goods Cenvat credit available as on 15/08/2000 and 31/08/2000 was ₹ 1,11,09,202/- and ₹ 1,28,68,887/- respectively, the utilization of Cenvat credit for payment of duty on these dates was ₹ 9,67,124/- and ₹ 33,00,407/- respectively and Cenvat credit available was much more than the amount which was utilized for payment of duty and as such it cannot be said that there was short payment of duty. Just because the debit entry of the duty paid was made in RG-23A Pt. II register, it cannot be inferred that the appellant had short paid the duty. Similarly, in respect of Unit - II, the total Cenvat credit including capital goods Cenvat credit available as on 15/08/2000 and 31/08/2000 was & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
