9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 568X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... % to 0.08% of the total procurement of parts. As find that the Tribunal in its decision in case of Maruti Udyog Ltd. (2004 (6) TMI 155 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI ) has not relied on quantum of shortages are excess, but has relied solely on minuscule percentage of shortages found. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also has relied on the percentage of shortages found. However, as an additional argument, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the fact that shortages of input was less than the excess of input found demonstrate the bona fide. In view of the above, find that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (supra). The impugned order is set aside and appeal is accordingly all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and excesses are mainly because of human errors like feeding of incorrect part number at the time of inwarding of the parts; wrong picking up of Left Hand/Right Hand parts at the time of dispatch. He argued that the shortage were of minuscule amount ranging from 0.01% to 0.21%. Similarly, there were excess in 0.01% to 0.08%. He argued that in large operations involved huge no. of parts, such variances are commercially inadvertable dispute elaborate system of account manufactured by them. He argued that there case is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Maruti Udyog Ltd. - 2004 (173) ELT 382 (Tri-Del), which was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. - 2015 (319) ELT 549 (SC). 3. Learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stocks and the procurement as normal and something to be put up with. It is a very small (0.24%) fraction of the inputs received. It is well settled that Tax Authorities also should go by the normal commercial and professional practice. If the shortages are within the tolerance limits fixed by an efficient Management and certified to as within the norms by qualified accounting professionals, it would be unreasonable and unfair for Tax authorities to take a different view. In these circumstances, we are of the view that there is no evidence to sustain a finding that this is a case of irregular or incorrect taking or utilisation of credit. In such a situation, no demand can be raised under Rule 57-I. The demand is accordingly, set aside and a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... find that the case of the appellant is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Maruti Udyog (supra). The only difference is that in case of Maruti Suzuki, value of excess found was greater than the value of shortages, whereas in the instant case the value of shortages is higher than the value of excess. In so far as the value of shortages ranging from 0.01% to 0.21% whereas the excess ranging from 0.01% to 0.08% of the total procurement of parts. I find that the Tribunal in its decision in case of Maruti Udyog Ltd. (supra) has not relied on quantum of shortages are excess, but has relied solely on minuscule percentage of shortages found. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also has relied on the percentage of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
