9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 1198X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acitors purported to have been cleared in 1994 to the Indore Office of BCPL. There are sufficient evidences to support the conclusion of the lower authorities. Further, the inconsistencies in the pleas made by BCEPL, tends to support the case of non-duty paid clearances. Period of limitation - Demand of modvat credit - inputs not utilized in the manufacture of final product - Held that:- it is seen that BCEPL have opted out of modvat scheme to avail exemption at the end of financial year 1998-99. Due intimation has been given to the Department. In the impugned order, the demand of modvat credit was set aside on the ground of time bar. It is a fact that the allegation of inputs having not been used in the manufacture of final product before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding penalties on BCEPL and Shri Ajit Bhandari, the impugned order requires no modification in view of the above analysis and findings. The impugned order is upheld - Appeals dismissed X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mand of ₹ 2,570/- on scrap material was confirmed. Regarding penalties, Commissioner (Appeals) held that for the period prior to 28.09.1996 (date of introduction of Section 11AC), the main appellant was held to be liable for penalty of ₹ 2,00,000/- and ₹ 5,48,304/- for the period subsequent to that date. Regarding clearance of scrap, a penalty of ₹ 2,000/- was imposed. Penalty of ₹ 50,000/- each imposed on BCPL and the Managing Director was upheld. The present six appeals are against this order of Commissioner (Appeals). 3. Appeal by the BCEPL is taken up as that covers all aspects of the main proceedings in the case. There are four issues decided in the proceedings before the lower authorities. Of these, dema ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... legations made in the show cause notice along with relied upon documents. I have perused carefully the impugned order. The main thrust of the argument of BCEPL against the demand is that the goods in question were already cleared by BCPL in 1994 itself on payment of duty. These goods were transferred to Indore Office of BCPL and sold over a period of time. Hence, it is the argument of BCEPL that duty demand against them is not proper. Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) examined in detail and arrived at the conclusion that BCEPL are liable to central excise duty except for six items of capacitors. The reasoning given by ld.Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be faulted. The contention of BCEPL regarding clearance of these capacitors in 1994 itself to Indo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s in the pleas made by BCEPL, as discussed in the impugned order, tends to support the case of non-duty paid clearances. 6. Regarding the second issue of demand of ₹ 3.76 lakhs towards modvat credit on inputs not utilized in the manufacture of final product. It is seen that BCEPL have opted out of modvat scheme to avail exemption at the end of financial year 1998-99.Due intimation has been given to the Department. In the impugned order, the demand of modvat credit was set aside on the ground of time bar. It is a fact that the allegation of inputs having not been used in the manufacture of final product before opting out of modvat scheme has been based on the modvat accounts, RG-I and other records maintained by the BCEPL. As pointed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oices deal with the capacitors and not capacitor banks. The findings of the lower authorities is based on the scrutiny of material records and in the appeal, Revenue has not produced any contrary evidence to interfere with such finding. 9. Regarding the demand of modvat credit of ₹ 3.76 lakhs on input credits at the time of opting out of modvat scheme and also regarding demand of duty on wires and cables, the findings in the impugned order have been found to be correct as discussed hereinabove and there is no merit in the appeals by the Revenue against such findings. No material evidence has been elaborated in the grounds of appeal to interfere with the findings of ld. Commissioner (Appeals) on these two issues. 10. Regarding the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
