9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 694X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant of having received the inputs into their factory has not been done by the Original Authority - the Original Authority has erred in ignoring the relevant evidence produced by the appellant - matter is remitted back to the Original Authority with a direction to compare the quantities of inputs claimed to have been received with the quantities of inputs reported to have been received filed on monthly basis as required under sub Rule (5) of Rule 7 and if there is any difference then only to confirm the demand - appeal allowed by way of remand. - Appeal Nos. E/1665-1667/2011-EX [ DB ] - Final Order Nos. 71915-71917/2017 - Dated:- 6-11-2017 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member ( Judicial ) And Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member ( Technical ) Sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ture of final product. On such basis of the said show cause notice proposed to recover Cenvat Credit of ₹ 58,38,213/- under Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. For issue of said show cause notice extended period limitation was invoked. Further, there was a demand raised through the said show cause notice for recovery of Central Excise Duty of ₹ 12,53,070/- on the clearance of scrap. The basis for the said demand was that it was alleged that the appellant did not account for 568.70MT of scrap generated during the year 2006-07. The appellant submitted their reply dated 16.11.2010 during the personal hearing. In Para 11 of the said reply submitted before the Original Authority the quantities of various inputs received by them wer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitted that the Cenvat Credit was availed after receipt of inputs on the basis of proper documents and that the period involved is 2005-06 to 2006-07 and show cause notice was issued in the year 2010 and the manufacturer-appellant submitted monthly return and also submitted Annexure 10 return required under sub Rule (5) of Rule 7 of Cenvat Credit Rules, during the period 2005-06 to 2006-07. The department has not raised any objection during the relevant period and even when the submissions were made before the Original Authority about the correctness of the quantities of the inputs received which can be compared with the returns submitted every month during the relevant period. The same was ignored by the Original Authority and demand was c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no malafide, they could have informed during defence reply the actual weight of material manufactured and cleared by them alongwith a correlation with the raw material. They have also not tried to place on record any other documentary evidence in support of their stand. 6. We find that the exercise of comparing quantities of inputs recorded to have been received in RG-23 record which is prescribed under the Cenvat Credit Rules and the returns filed under sub Rule (5) of Rule 7 of Cenvat Credit Rules with the claim of the appellant of having received the inputs into their factory has not been done by the Original Authority. We find that the Original Authority has considered the private record which was the estimation of the inputs cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
