2017 (5) TMI 384

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... equently they have clarified and corrected. It is also undisputed that department did not find any discrepancy in the books of the appellant. The appellant after verification of their stock and books came to the conclusion that actual shortage if at all is there, it is 44 Lakh, on which which they have admittedly reversed the credit - there is no reason that only on the basis of some shortage recorded in the books of M/s. Mahindra and Mahindra, why the credit should be disallowed to the appellant when there is no evidence of any manipulation on the part of by the appellant in their books of account and no evidence of diverting inputs otherwise - credit allowed - decided in favor of assessee.
Mr Ramesh Nair, Member(Judicial) Shri. Rajesh .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ally recorded by M/s. Mahindra and Mahindra was under some mistake of accounting which was subsequently clarified vide M/s. Mahindra and Mahindra, therefore actual shortage of ₹ 44 Lakhs that too not established that whether any input was cleared from the factory of the appellant, it is only due to accounting error. However they have admittedly paid amount of ₹ 7,04,361/- therefore there is no basis for denial of the credit attributed to the value of appox. ₹ 2.3 Crores shown as shortage by M/s. Mahindra and Mahindra for five years. 3. On the other hand, Shri. Sanjay Hasija, Ld. Superintendent(A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He placed reliance on the following judgme .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... In this facts, I do not see any reason that only on the basis of some shortage recorded in the books of M/s. Mahindra and Mahindra, why the credit should be disallowed to the appellant when there is no evidence of any manipulation on the part of by the appellant in their books of account and no evidence of diverting inputs otherwise. Therefore impugned order is not sustained and same is modified to the extent that Cenvat credit except the amount of ₹ 7,04,361/- is allowed. Penalty is set aside. Interest is chargeable on ₹ 7,04,361/- as per law. In the facts and circumstances of the case, personal penalties on the employees of the appellant company are not sustainable therefore the same are set aside. As result Appeal of the M/s .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X