9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1177X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were transferred by Santoor Unit (appellant) to Abu Road factory for use in manufacture of ABS Polymers during the period from January, 2008 to June, 2008 and were assessed provisionally. 3. The Central Excise Officers scrutinized the following documents/returns filed by the appellant s: i) ER-4 return (Annual Financial Information Statement) for the financial year 2007-08 filed under Rule 12(2) of the C.Ex. Rules, 2002. ii) ER-1 return for the months of January, 2008 to June, 2008. iii) ER-6 returns filed under Rule 9A (3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for the months of April, 2007 to March, 2008. iv) Cost audit report for 2007-08. v) CAS-4 certificate for quarter ending March, 2008. The officers noticed difference between ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 008 was 1719.186 MT while CAS-4 certificate took 1450.479 MT as production into consideration. Thus the consumption of raw material and the production of HRG polymers considered in CAS-4 certificate were short by 488.62 MT and 268.707 MT respectively. The view was taken that this quantity of raw material was used to manufacture finished goods and cleared the same without payment of excise duty amounting to Rs. 2,64,39,186/-. ii) That while working out the cost of production for the quarter ending June, 2008 in CAS-4 certificate, the production figures had been taken as 1318.15 MT instead of actual production of 1265.903 MT resulting in the determination of the lower assessable value and consequently in short payment of duty to the tune of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted by the appellant only after a gap of 5 years after the audit. Consequently, the same merits to be ignored as an afterthought. 8. The goods, ARG powder, manufactured by the appellant Santoor unit is cleared to the other unit of the company at Abu Road. For such stock transfer, duty was being paid on the basis of cost of production of the goods certified in form CAS-4 by independent Cost Accountant. During the course of scrutiny of ER-1, ER-4 as well as ER-6 returns with CAS-4 certificates, the departmental officers noticed discrepancy in the receipt and consumption figures of raw materials. It was noticed that the appellant had under-reported the consumption of raw materials which was considered in the CAS-4 certificates. The allegation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ditor after taking into account the correct quantity of raw material consumed. It has been claimed by the appellant that such revised certificates were submitted to the department on !5.05.2010 soon after the visit of the departmental officers but the adjudicating authority has taken the view that such reports were submitted only after a period of 5 years, as an afterthought. 9. The appellant had declared the total quantity of goods manufactured and cleared by them in the monthly ER-1 returns. It has been admitted by them that there were mistakes in the preparation of ER-6 returns resulting in the mistakes in valuation of goods as per CAS-4. The revised ER-6 as well as CAS-4 certificate tally with ER-1 as well as ER-4. Consequently, we fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
