9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 665X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Appellant had received the rejected quantity of 577.11 MT at 23.45 hrs whereas the same was shown to have been cleared on the same day at 20.55 hrs. This leads to support the case of the Revenue and the Appellant could not rebut the charges of non-receipt by adducing sufficient evidences. Therefore, the Appellants are not eligible to avail CENVAT Credit on the invoices under which the goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shed goods returned to the factory as per Rule 16 of Central Excise Rules 2001/2002. As the Appellants could not produce the proper documents/records in establishing the return and processing of the said goods in their factory, demand notice was issued to them on 26.06.2010 invoking extended period of limitation. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed and penalty of equivalent amount imposed. O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the finding that the Appellant has not been able to establish that the goods were received in the factory and subjected to any process before clearance of the same. Referring to the Chart I, the learned Authorised Representative submitted that on a number of occasions, before receipt of the goods for further processing, the same were shown as dispatch from the factory. Therefore, the Appellants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to establish that the finished goods cleared initially against the invoice were in fact rejected and received in the factory for further processing, as required under Rule 16 of Central Excise Rules 2001/2002. The learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue brought to my notice a chart whereunder the details of the receipt of the rejected goods in the factory and clearance had been tabulate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
