9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1086X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (1) of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The entire credit taken by the appellant was sought to be reversed on the ground that the appellant was not in a position to show as to what kind of material has been crushed or reprocessed and whether it is from the scrap generated during the course of manufacture of finished goods or the goods rejected from the customers. Essentially, the revenue sought an accountal of goods received from the buyers on which they had availed Cenvat Credit under Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The appellant gave a detailed accountal of goods in following four categories: a) Statement showing return and receipt of Plain Polyethylene films from M/s.Cargil Foods India Ltd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd. had claimed to have paid/reversed against the clearances of scrap arisen during printing, re-winding, re-sealing, re-treatment, agglomeration and manufacture of re-generated granules on which duty was paid on transaction value. Against this, appeal of the revenue the Supreme Industries Ltd. filed a cross objection challenging the confirmation of demand of Rs. 2,70,897/- and penalty and interest thereon, which they had already deposited. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the demand of Rs. 2,97,424/-. He however, gave the following findings in respect of the demand of Rs. 2,70,897/- which was confirmed by the original adjudicating authority. "6. I have considered the grounds of appeal, avail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds should have been reversed. For this purpose he relied on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Modi Rubber Ltd. Vs. UOI - 1987 (29) ELT 502 (Del.). 5. I have gone ground the rival submissions. I find that the appellant in their cross objection before the Commissioner (Appeals) have raised the issue regarding correctness of confirmation of demand of Rs. 2,70,897/- as well as imposition of penalty and the interest thereon. The observations of Commissioner (Appeals) to the effect that the said portion of the confirmation of demand has not been challenged is incorrect and without basis. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) to that extent unsustainable. As regards the de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
