9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 1025X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vocate, and Shri Abhishek Jaju, Advocate for Appellants Shri A.K. Goswami, Additional Commissioner (AR), for Respondent ORDER These two appeals were initially disposed through final order No. 560-61/06-CE dated 12.07.06. Subsequently, through miscellaneous Order No. 59068-59069/2013 dated 27/08/13, both the appeals were restored. 2. Brief facts of the case are that appellants were engaged in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - availed on rubber was disallowed holding that the appellants has procured more inputs than required by them and therefore, the said credit was liable to be denied to them. Further, cenvat credit of Rs. 1,47,648/- and cenvat credit of Rs. 2,04,683/- were disallowed. The appellants were imposed with penalty of Rs. 56,90,146/- on the assessee and personal penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on Managing Director ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estinely. The only allegation is that the wastage of input was more than expectation of the adjudicating authority and therefore, cenvat credit was denied by original authority. He further argued that formerly Rule 57D of central Excise Rules, 1944 provided that cenvat credit shall not be denied on any quantity of input going into waste. There is no provision of the law which authorizes Central Ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... used in the manufacture of final products that they are not cleared as such. We do not find any allegation in the show cause notice that the appellants had not procured the inputs nor that the inputs had not suffered Central Excise duty nor that the input were cleared as such by the appellant. In fact there is no investigation in respect of above stated aspects as reflected in the impugned order. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
