9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 755X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only for the reason that the head office has failed to take out registration aside. However before such credits are permitted, it will be necessary for the appellant to satisfy the Departmental authorities about the nature of services for which service tax has been paid so that the Department can verify whether such services fall within the definition of input service under rule2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 - matter placed on remand. Suppression of production and clandestine removal of 6847 pieces of finished goods - Held that: - After careful consideration of the invoices submitted by the appellant, it is concluded that these do not pertain to the goods and hence demand has been raised in the show cause notice - demand upheld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y demand of ₹ 21,91,520/-. 3. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the present appeal has been filed. 4. With the above background we have heard Sh. Mohan Lal, Advocate for the appellant and Shri H.C. Saini, DR for the respondent. 5. The ld. counsel for the appellant summarized the main grounds of appeal as follows: Pertaining to shortage of 2420 pieces of water closet: i) The demand on alleged shortages of water closet is not justified as the stock taking was done by the officers on eye estimation basis and it is humanly not possible to count 75688 pieces in half a day. The physical verification report has already been challenged by them before the Department with the allegation that the verification report was got f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aking. ii) These goods were subsequently cleared on payment of duty partially and the rest were cleared for export. Even though necessary documentary proof was submitted to the adjudicating authority, the same was not considered. iii) Finally the ld. counsel submitted that the demands were not justified and may be set-aside. 6. The ld. DR appearing for the revenue justified the impugned order. He argued that at the time of stock taking in the factory, the Department officers were accompanied and assisted by the staff of the appellant. The stock taking was carried out to the satisfaction of the representatives of the company and hence it is not open to the appellant to challenge the same at this stage. With reference to the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aised by the appellant with reference to the procedure adopted is nothing but an afterthought. During the statements recorded from various connected employees of the appellant company, no one could give any explanation regarding the shortage of goods found. Each one pointed at somebody else and said the other person can give explanation. The adjudicating authority has discussed these aspects in Para 56.4 and 56.5 in detail. In view of the above, we find no reason to interfere with the finding of the adjudicating authority as above. The demand of duty amounting to ₹ 20,07,789/- on this ground is upheld for the reasons given in detail by the adjudicating authority. 10. Next, we turn to the allegation of irregular availment of cenvat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e transfer of credit from head office to the appellant unit cannot be held as irregular only for the reason that the head office has failed to take out registration aside. However before such credits are permitted, it will be necessary for the appellant to satisfy the Departmental authorities about the nature of services for which service tax has been paid so that the Department can verify whether such services fall within the definition of input service under rule2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. For this purpose we consider it necessary to remand this particular issue back to the adjudicating authority for denovo decision in the matter. The appellant is directed to produce all relevant invoices based on which such credits have been cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such goods were stored in the factory but were not counted during stock taking. However in their defence at the time of adjudication, they have claimed that a part of such goods were cleared on payment of duty under invoices and the rest of the goods were exported under claim for rebate. The adjudicating authority has examined such claims of the appellant and discussed the same at length in para 7.3 and 57.4. After careful consideration of the invoices submitted by the appellant, he has concluded that these do not pertain to the goods and hence demand has been raised in the show cause notice. For the detailed reasons discussed by the adjudicating authority as above, we uphold the demand amounting to ₹ 21,91,520/- on this ground. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
