9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1434X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Judicial Member Shri Manoj Pillai, Advocate, For the Appellant Shri Madhupsharan, Asst. Commissioner(AR), For the Respondent ORDER Per: SS GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dt. 14/09/2015 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) whereby the Commissioner(Appeals) has rejected the appeal of the appellant. 2.1. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are, owned by the Government of Kerala, engaged in the manufacture of goods falling under chapter heading 8536 and 9028 of CETA. It appears that the appellant cleared their products on payment of duty and e-filed the monthly ER-1 returns. During the month of June, 2013, 11330 nos. of SP static LCD meter sub-assemblies / ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant submitted that the impugned order demanding the differential duty amounting to ₹ 3,01,919/- is not sustainable in law as the same is contrary to the facts and the law. He further submitted that the appellant had purchased the inputs from the supplier on which appropriate duty of 10% was paid and appellant has taken the CENVAT credit on the input duty paid. During the process of manufacture, 16,647 units were found defective and the appellant had transferred the same from the finished goods accounts to raw material account and returned to the supplier for rectification and return. He further submitted that at the time of return of inputs duty @ 10% was paid since it was the duty paid by the input manufacturer but by Order-in-Origin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wed the procedure as prescribed in Rule 16 of the CCR, 2004. Here it is relevant to reproduce the relevant finding which is contained in para 14 of the impugned order and is reproduced herein below:- 14. I have carefully gone through the appeal memorandum, submissions and the impugned order. I find that appellant received inputs viz. electric meters / components from their supplier and manufactured and cleared on payment of duty at the rate of 12%. The appellant stated that the goods were returned to the supplier for rectification. But they have not produced any proof before the adjudicating authority that the repaired good were received back There is no corroborating evidence to prove that the goods set for the repair earlier and retur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
