9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 190X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not produced before the Commissioner (Appeals). They would also need to produce prescribed documents showing proof of duty paid on inputs in support of their claim - matter on remand. Reduced penalties - Held that: - no documentary proof or even dates for said payments have been produced - plea for reduced penalty cannot be examined in absence of these documents/details of payments. Appellants are therefore directed to submit documentary proof of payment of duty, interest and penalty paid by them before the Commissioner (Appeals) with clear indication of dates and amounts of payment of each - matter on remand. Appeal allowed by way of remand. - E/686-689/2012 - A/61215-61218/2017-SM[BR] - Dated:- 30-6-2017 - Mr. Devender Singh, Mem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rating from; (v) That M/s.LMPL did not have any electricity connection or generators and the entire manufacturing facilities were owned by M/s.SFPL where the electricity expenses, diesel expenses, etc were borne by them. (vi) That the Quilt Machine required for manufacturing the quilt for the mattresses was imported by M/s.SFPL, the payment of which was made by them and also the Cenvat credit of the CVD and SAD paid was availed by them. (vii) That the major raw materials viz.PU Foam Sheets were manufactured in-house by M/s.SFPL and billed to M/s.LMPL; (viii) That the printed polythene bags used for the packing of Hi Style brand mattresses were purchased by M/s.SFPL form M/s. Skypack India Pvt.Ltd., Ballabhgarh, which wer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion Vs. CCE-1995 (77) ELT 511 (SC) (ii) CCE, Salem Vs. Chemplast Sanmar Ltd.-2009 (239) ELT 398 (Mad.) (iii) Sridhar Paints Co.P.Ltd. Vs.CCE, Hyderabad-III-2006 (198) ELT 514 (Tri.-Bang.) (iv) Sonam Clock Pvt.Ltd. Vs. CCE, Rajkot-2012 (278) ELT 263 (Tri.-Ahmd.) 4. Learned AR while reiterating the findings in the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) submitted that no evidence has been submitted by the appellant for the duty paid on inputs. Besides, they had given no details of bifurcation of the amount in respect of the duty penalty and interest. He also contended that the proviso cited by the learned Advocate were inbuilt in the Section and there was no need to expressly mention the same in the show cause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not produced before the Commissioner (Appeals). They would also need to produce prescribed documents showing proof of duty paid on inputs in support of their claim. Hence, the matter needs to be remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to re-examine the claim of the appellants regarding adjustment of the Cenvat credit. The appellants on their part are required to furnish sufficient documentary evidence in respect of the payment of duty on inputs. 8. On the question of penalties, appellant No.1 have claimed that they had discharged the entire duty liability, interest thereon and 25% of duty as penalty and major portion of dues adjudged had been deposited much before the expiry of 30 days form show cause notice. However, no documentar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
