9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1229X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nputs before selling them as waste and scrap, ld.Consultant appearing for the Appellant could not bring any evidence on record to suggest that any process was done on the inputs before the same were sold - The argument of the Appellant that inputs on receipt were found defective and were cleared as waste and scrap is not tenable because even if the defective inputs are sold as scrap then also the actual Cenvat Crdit taken at the time of receipt of these inputs was required to be reversed - Appeal dismissed - decided against the assessee. - EA-687/12 - FO/A/75669/2016 - Dated:- 25-7-2016 - Shri H.K.Thakur, Member(Technical) Shri M.K.Guha Neogy, Consultant for the Appellant (s) Shri K.Choudhury, Supdt.(AR) for the Revenue O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t there was a deliberate attempt to clandestinely clear inputs without reversal of Cenvat Credit. It is also the case of the ld.AR that no processes were done on the inputs which were cleared as such and equivalent credit taken with respect to these inputs was required to be reversed instead of payment of duty as waste and scrap on transaction value. 5. Heard both sides and perused the case records. The issues involved in these proceedings are as follows:- (a) Whether Appellant has correctly paid duty on shortages detected by the Officers of Central Excise in a joint stock verification? (b) Whether Cenvat Credit is required to be reversed with respect to total credit taken on the inputs or at the time of receipt the same is requ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not tenable because even if the defective inputs are sold as scrap then also the actual Cenvat Crdit taken at the time of receipt of these inputs was required to be reversed. It is also observed from the case records that challans were prepared only to create paper whereas Shri P.K.Maity, Accounts Manager of M/s.Rima Gases (P) Ltd. clearly stated in his statement dated 06.12.2005 that they never received any scrap from the Appellant for job-work, but these consignments were purchased from the Appellant. In view of the above the conduct of the Appellant is mischievous and penalty has been correctly imposed by the Adjudicating Authority and upheld by the First Appellate Authority. 8. In view of the above observation, Appeal filed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
