9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 98X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , without corresponding to the payment of duty Rs. 1,81,002/- was confirmed for shortage in the stock of input on which Cenvat credit have been taken, involving duty of Rs. 1,81,002/-. 2. The brief facts are that the appellants (having two units) are manufacturers of Tower structure for transmission line used in projects of Central Government/State Governments. Their main inputs are M.S. Angles, Rounds Bars, Channels and Plates etc. As per show cause notice dated 23/01/2013 there was an inspection in the factory on 1st February, 2012, wherein following discrepancies were noted: - i- Credit of Rs. 3,00,649/- was taken on invoices on which proper address was not found. The details of which are as follows:- SI. No. Invoice No. & Date (RUD- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ked out to Rs. 26,803/-. 4. It was also alleged that on physical verification of stock conducted in presence of the CEO, 44.814 MT raw material, that is, MS Angles was found short from the recorded balance and accordingly duty was demanded at Rs. 1,81,002/-. It is further stated in the SCN that the appellant voluntarily admitted to deposit the duty of Rs. 3,00,649/- and Rs. 1,42,839/- the Cenvat credits were debited vide RG-23A Part-II Entry No.473 and 475 dated 15th February, 2012 and further the appellants voluntarily deposited Rs. 26,803/- vide Challan No.033 dated 25th May, 2012 from iron scrap of Rs. 1,81,002/- deposited GAR-7 dated 16th February, 2012 on MS Angles Round Bars, Channels and Plates. The appellants appeared and contended ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s have reversed the Cenvat credit of Rs. 3,00,649/- without any protest and accordingly, declined to interfere. 5. The Learned A.R. has supported the findings. 6. Having considered the facts on the record and rival contentions, I find that admittedly there is only clerical error in the invoice(s). Admitted facts are that the appellants had two units in the same industrial area, only difference name - "Structure Division", by the same management. Further admitted facts are that goods were found properly accounted in the proper records as required and no discrepancies were found with regard, and used in manufacture of finished goods, cleared by appellants on duty payment. Accordingly, I hold that the amount of Rs. 3,00,649/- to be allowed a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Counsel draws reference to the voucher for removal of scrap, annexed to the appeal paper book, which states that scrap have been removed net weight 15.490MT, scrap sold to one Mr. Rajeev. The Learned Counsel states that they have actually removed the worn out shed which had been scraped, pursuant to repairs and renewal. Such shed being not dutiable nor credit was taken. Thus there is no question of reversal of Cenvat credit, or payment of duty on the same. It is also stated that the scrap was generated during the course of establishing the factory, from iron & steel used in establishment of factory building shed etc. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) have observed that the appellants failed to lead evidence, as such confirmed the duty. 11 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
