9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 692X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant explaining the reasons for the shortage of inputs - appeal allowed by way of remand. - E/21240/2017-SM - 22675/2017 - Dated:- 1-11-2017 - Shri S.S Garg, Judicial Member Mr. Madhu N. Rao, Advocate - For the Appellant Mr. N. Jagadish, AR - For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 19.5.2017 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) has disposed of two appeals, one filed by the appellant and another filed by the Department. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellants are manufacturers of excisable goods falling under Chapters 84 and 87 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They are availing of the facility of CEN ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... les, 2002. After following due process, the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, vide Order-in-Original dated 23.1.2014 confirmed the demand and the recovery of the irregular CENVAT credit of ₹ 14,09,052/- along with interest; held the relevant inputs found totally valued at ₹ 1,36,80,118/- as liable to confiscation but dropped the penal action proposed. Aggrieved by the Order-in-Original, the Department filed appeal on the ground that the Order-in-Original did not impose any penalty on the appellant under Rule 15(2) of CCR read with Section 11AC. Similarly, the assessee also filed appeal against the Order-in-Original on various grounds explaining the reasons for shortages in the stock but the Commissioner (A) was not conv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been done in the present case. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the decision in the case of CCE Vs. Widia India Ltd.: 2010-255-ELT-36 (Kar.-HC). and National Engineering Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE: 2015-330-ELT-681 (Tri.-Del.). 5. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order and submitted that there was shortage of inputs which was detected during the audit and the appellant was asked to reverse the CENVAT credit taken on those inputs as the same has not been used by them in the manufacture of their dutiable products. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that the Commissioner (A) in the impugned order has observed that the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
