9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 137X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s were procured and exported by the appellants. The said crucial evidences is missing in the case. The benefit of doubt goes in the favour of the appellants as they have shown the ample number of machinery installed in the factory which have been used for the manufacturing of finished goods. As crucial evidences of diversion of inputs and procurement of finished goods is missing in the investigation, therefore, the Cenvat Credit cannot be denied to the appellants and consequently, rebate claim already sanctioned to the appellants is not recoverable. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd list of machinery was prepared and the same is placed on record. The premise was again visited on 28.06.2007 and verified the machinery installed. The appellants also furnished Chartered Accountant Certificate certifying that they have not purchased any machinery after inspection/visit except Air-conditioner/Refrigerator. The goods exported were manufactured out of the same set of machines verified by visiting staff. He further submitted that audit of the appellants was conducted upto March, 2006 and there is no allegation against the appellants and no any discrepancy was found that the unit was not working or workable condition. He further submitted that appellants had filed declarations under Rule 173 (B) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 declaring therein goods manufactured and list of raw material used. The appellants had also filed job work declaration for getting job work done. The appellants unit got ISO-9001 certification and the audit report dt. 25.08.2006 done by the said department is also placed on record. The goods were also sent for export through merchant exporter and some goods were received back under intimation to the Department and same were recorded in RG-I (Dail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o manufacture the impugned goods. He further submitted that the said certificate does not deal with the goods manufactured by the appellants, therefore, the said certificate is of no relevance. He further submitted that the appellants have used the wire as inputs for manufacture of the goods in question but the said wire has been used for manufacture of small quantity of the goods exported. He further submitted that precision tube which has been shown used in the manufactured of forged or cast items and appellants have no facility of forging/casting in their factory. Further, the appellants ensured bolt as input for manufacture forged and cast items. In fact bolt itself is complete finish excisable goods and cannot be treated as input for manufacturing forged and cast items shown to have been manufactured by the appellants. The items manufactured are broadly classified either as Hand Tools or Garden Tools Or Hardware Goods besides MS Scrap which has been declared as generated/manufactured during the course of manufacture of said goods. The said goods can be manufactured either by way of casting or forging and they had not manufactured any castings items as no machines were there du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ficate certifying that the appellants having manufacturing facility. The said certificate have no much relevance to the facts of the case as the said certificate has been obtained in October, 2008 and period in dispute is prior to that but the evidence which are in favour of the appellants are the Annexure B1 i.e. the list of machinery installed in the factory premises which were found during the course of visit. The list of machinery is extracted as under:- Further, the such of machinery found on 28.06.2007 is also installed in their factory and the details of the machinery as under:- We further find that that chartered engineer has issued a certificate that the appellant has not purchased any machinery during the period from 2007-2008 except Air-conditioner/Refrigerator which supports the fact that the appellants are having manufacturing facility in their factory. 10. Further, we find that the audit was conducted in the factory premise of the appellants upto March 2006 and no discrepancy were found. We also find that the appellants have filed declaration under Rule 57(f)(c) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 dt. 01.01.2001 declaring to remove the inputs for partially process go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
