9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 448X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and finished goods lying in stock as on the date of debonding viz. 7/03/2012. Appellants had taken CENVAT credit of the duties paid towards CVD, education cess & SHE cess and additional duty to the tune of Rs. 90,40,497/-. The credit was taken on the strength of self-invoice since the use of the inputs was within the same factory which was converted from EOU to DTA. 2. The CENVAT Credit has been held to be inadmissible and the learned Commissioner has denied the claim on the following grounds:- i. The claim of the appellants that intermediates and finished goods on which duty is paid on debonding the 100% EOU, having subsequently been used as inputs in further manufacture ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s held that, CENVAT credit of duty paid on yarn (final product) lying in stock at the time of debonding cannot be taken as they yarn was not going to be used as input in or in relation to manufacture of finished products. Besides demanding CENVAT credit, penalty has also been imposed. 3. After hearing both sides for considerable time, it is found that the credit has been denied only on the ground that the appellants did not produce purchase orders for the finished goods sold by them after processing. It is the claim of the appellants that they had declared inadvertently and paid duty on finished goods and intermediate goods. After the unit was converted to DTA, the items or goods which were declared as finished goods were used as inputs a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en completely reversed is wrong; there is no finding that there was actually no clearances of the finished goods to the customers. Purchase order is not statutory document and in the absence of it being a statutory requirement even if the purchase order is not there, the appellant cannot be found fault with if they had sold the goods and in the absence of any finding that the goods have not been sold or the documents shown regarding sale were fictitious /bogus and in the absence of finding that the goods were not manufactured by the appellant, just because the appellants had made a declaration that they were transferring the finished goods at the time of conversion, it cannot be said that they became disentitled to CENVAT credit. According ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
