9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 117X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en indicated in the said Panchnama dated 28.02.2013. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that there was no stock taking carried out but it was only the eye estimation through inspection that 106 MT of Billets were stated to be short cannot be proved to be wrong on the basis of record - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/70241 & 70244/2016-EX[SM] - FINAL ORDER NOs. 70933-70 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... indicates that Billets weighing 106 MT were short at the time of stock taking on 28.02.2013. Therefore, the appellant were issued with a show cause notice dated 05.02.2014 demanding Cenvat Credit of ₹ 4,96,026/- involved in 106 MT of billet. The said show cause notice was also had a proposal to impose personal penalty on the other appellant. The said show cause notice was adjudicated through ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d order appellants preferred appeals before this Tribunal. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants who has submitted that stock taking was not at all taken place but by the method of eye estimation officers who visited their factory on 28.02.2013 wrote in the Panchnama that 106 MT of M.S. Billet were short and has taken me through the copy of Panchnama dated 28.02.2013 which is avail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T of Billets were stated to be short cannot be proved to be wrong on the basis of record. I therefore, hold that the said show cause notice dated 05.02.2014 is not sustainable. Therefore, I set aside the impugned Order-in-Appeal and as a consequence Order-in-Original dated 26.12.2014 does not survive in law. In above terms I allow both the appeals. The appellant shall be entitled for consequential ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
