9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 146X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fied or otherwise? Held that: - substantial evidence could not be placed to establish that the correct amount should have been ₹ 6,6,419/- instead of ₹ 8,17,408/-, demand upheld - penalty is unwarranted inasmuch as the appellant had cleared the imported inputs as such on payment of duty on the transaction value and disclosed in their monthly return, meticulously, and also keeping i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... olvents etc. falling under Chapter Heading Nos.32, 38 and 39 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellants had availed CENVAT credit on imported inputs and utilized the same in the manufacture of finished goods. However, some of the imported inputs on which credit was availed had been cleared by them to their sister concern and other parties on payment of duty on the transaction value of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nput. He submits that computation of the differential credit i.e. ₹ 8,17,408/- by the Department was erroneous. In support of their contention, they have produced a Chartered Accountant certificate. Further, he submits that there was no mala fide intention on their part to pay/reverse less amount of duty on the imported goods cleared as such, as is evident from the disclosure in the respec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issue in the present case for determination is whether the differential amount i.e. ₹ 8,17,408/- availed as excess credit on the imported inputs in discharging the transaction value cleared as such as confirmed in the orders are correct or otherwise and also whether imposition of penalty in the facts and circumstances of the case is justified or otherwise. Ld. C.A. for the appellant vehemen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
