9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 832X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roperly, the demand cannot be confirmed against the assessee - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/20221/2015-SM - 22777/2017 - Dated:- 14-11-2017 - Shri SS Garg, Judicial Member Mr. M.S. Srinivasa, Advocate - For the Appellant Mrs. Kavitha Podwal, AR - For the Respondent ORDER Per: SS GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 22.10.2014 passed by the Commissioner (A), whereby the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeal of the appellant. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of power transformers falling under Chapter 85 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, During the course of audit, it was noticed that the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ob work and received from the job workers are duly accounted for. He also submitted that the quantity of scrap received is also accounted for in the said register in respect of all job work challans which find mention in the Annexure to the show-cause notice. The challans and the register for the impugned period were also produced to the audit for verification no He also submitted that no scrap is generated in the manufacturing unit in the course of manufacture of transformers and scrap is only generated at the job workers' end, which is received back, stored in their unit and duly accounted for in the RG-1 register maintained by them and cleared on payment of applicable duty. He further submitted that the appellant produced the copies ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated in the course of job work in their RG-1 register whereas the appellant has shown the said scrap in the register in Form Annexure-IV and it is also a fact that when the said scrap is sold by issuing invoice, the same invoice is reflected in the RG-1 register. The learned Commissioner (A) has observed that the appellant have improperly maintained the record and that is why they have confirmed the demand instead of imposing some penalty under Rule 25 for maintaining the record improperly. It is not the case of the Revenue that the appellant have removed the scrap clandestinely and therefore, simply on the allegation of non-accountal of record properly, the demand cannot be confirmed against the assessee. Further, I find that the allegatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
