9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1159X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s cleared by appellants during the period, especially March 2001, the quantity of stock held by appellants for the period 7.3.2001/10.03.2001 can be safely arrived at basing on such details - the appellants should be given a further chance to establish their case by reconciliation of the figures in the stock books/statements - matter remanded. Time limitation - Held that: - Since the matter is remanded, the said issue also can be considered by the adjudicating authority. Appeal allowed by way of remand. - E/431/2007 & E/406/2009 - Final Order No.43080-43081/2017 - Dated:- 8-12-2017 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member ( Judicial ) Shri M. Karthikeyan, Advocate, for the appellant Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR) for the respondent ORDER The issue involved in both the appeals being the same they are heard together and are disposed by this common order. 2. Appeal No. E/431/2007 is filed by M/s. Srivari Laminations Pvt. Ltd., (SL in short) Appeal No. E/406/2009 is filed by M/s. Srivari Packaging Industries Ltd., (SP in short). 3. The brief facts are that the appellants are engaged in manufacturing corrugated boxes falling under Chapter Heading 48 of CETA 85. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he adjudicating authority. It is seen that after remand the case of SL was adjudicated by the Commissioner and vide denovo OIO No. 4/2007 dated 28.02.2007, the Commissioner confirmed the demand of ₹ 23,10,812/- along with interest and also imposed equal penalty. The case of SP was adjudicated by the Addl. Commissioner and vide denovo OIO dated 28.02.2007, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of ₹ 13,53,436/- along with interest and imposed equal penalty. Against this order, SP filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and vide OIA dated 09.04.2009, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the OIO thus dismissing the appeal. The appellants, SL has filed appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner confirming the demand, interest and penalty. 4.1 On behalf of both the appellants, the Ld. Counsel Shri M. Karthikeyan, appeared and argued the matter. He submitted that the basis on which the department alleges that appellants availed excess credit in both the appeals are identical. The appellants had declared the stock of inputs to the department . Thus SL had declared the stock of kraft paper to be 9,08,555 kgs. as on 07.03.2001 and SP had declared the st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aration. After two years of filing the declaration, the department has made the allegation stating that there is difference in the entries of stock in both the stock registers and therefore excess credit is availed. It was submitted by him that in earlier dates of hearing of the appeal, pursuant to the directions of the Tribunal, the appellant had submitted detailed reconciliation statement with regard to both the stock registers. In such reconciliation statement it can be seen that the stock declared by the appellant is correct and this can be established by way of reverse calculation from the details of production, clearances, closing stock as declared by them in the periodical returns filed with Central Excise authorities as well as income tax authorities. That there is no dispute with regard to the quantity of purchase of kraft papers made by the appellant or that they have not been properly accounted. So also, there is no dispute that the appellant has not paid duty on such purchases of kraft papers. The department though alleges that the appellant has availed excess credit, does not dispute the quantity of the finished goods cleared by them using the inputs in stock or the du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2001, the appellants furnished all the required documents to the department along with the covering letter. In spite of such details/documents furnished by the appellants, the department has issued the SCN after a period of more than two years. That the appellant has not suppressed any facts and if the department had conducted verification in 2001 itself, the clear picture of the stock of inputs and the credit availed by the appellants would be clear to the department. After a lapse of two years, the department had conducted a visit on 17.02.2003 and issued SCN alleging that the appellant has maintained a separate stock register and has made fictitious entries. Since there is no allegation with respect to quantity of clearances made using the stock of inputs declared by the appellants, the allegation of the department that the appellant did not have the quantity of stock declared as on 07.03.2001 /10.03.2001 is without basis. He therefore pleaded to allow the appeal. 5. Against this, Ld. AR, Shri B. Balamurugan, reiterated the findings in the impugned order. He submitted that the appellants crossed the SSI limit of ₹ 10,00,000/- on 07.03.2001 and applied for transitional ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re the entries in the new stock book are false and made for the purpose of availing credit declared by the appellants. On perusal of records, pursuant to the directions from the Tribunal during the earlier hearing dates, the appellant has filed reconciliation statement of both stock registers. It is the consistent case of the appellant that the stock cleared by them is correct and although they had stopped making entries in old stock book noted II/2 and started a new book indicated as II/1, the quantity of stock noted in these two books tallies and can be reconciled. It is also strongly argued by the Ld. Counsel that as there is no dispute with regard to the purchases of inputs, the duty paid on them, their accounting as well as the quantity of finished products manufactured using the inputs, the allegation of the department is without basis. The appellants have declared closing stock to the sales tax and income tax authorities as on 31.3.2001. Further, there is no dispute with regard to clearances made during this period. The appellant has submitted that the entries in these stock registers as well as the stock statement given by SP can be reconciled. The department has countered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
