9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 694X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Ghaziabad. Therefore, these are taken together of decision. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the manufacturer-appellant was engaged in the manufacture of equipments for Sugar, Chemicals, Distilleries, Cement plants and general fabrication from MS/SS Steel. They were registered under Central Excise Act and were availing facility of Cenvat Credit. The manufacturing unit was visited by Officers of Central Excise on 17.03.2007 and resumed some records under Panchnama dated 17.03.2007 and on the basis of those records and certain statements recorded issued a show cause notice dated 30.04.2010 covering the period from 2005-06 to 2006-07. The allegations in the show cause notice were tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the said reply relevant copies of RG-23 A Part-II for the year 2005-06 as well as the copies of the returns submitted regularly were enclosed. The Original Authority decided the said show cause notice through impugned Order-in-Original. The Original Authority confirmed the demand and imposed equal penalty and directed the manufacturer-appellant to pay interest on the demand confirmed in respect of Cenvat Credit and also in respect of demand of duty on scrap generated. Further, the Original Authority imposed personal penalty of Rs. 7 lakhs on Shri Deepak Mittal and penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs on Shri B.L. Mittal both under Ruled 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Aggrieved by the said order appellants are before this Tribunal. 3. Heard the lea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 19.03.2007 and since the retraction was made, the retraction should have been taken into consideration. 4. Heard the learned AR who has supported the impugned Order-in-Original. 5. Having considered the rival contentions, we find that the Original Authority has dealt with the submissions in respect of the returns filed regularly and relevant information about inputs submitted regularly during the year 2005-06 to 2006-07 in Para 6.20 of the findings which is reproduced below:- "6.20. Regarding their another plea that receipt and use of each and every input was informed through monthly submission of RG-23A Part-I and RG-23 Part-2 and monthly Annexure-10 return furnished under Sub Rule (5) of Rule 7 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 which w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the appellant. We, therefore, set aside the impugned Order-in-Original and remand the matter 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. Further the retraction of statement by Shir Neeraj Mishra should also be taken into consederation while deciding the demand of Central Excise Duty on scrap. We, further, give liberty to the appellant to make any submission as per law before the Original Authority. Original Authority to decide this matter in remand proceedings within the period of si ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
