9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 107X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be set aside which hereby do - Since the issue on limitation is answered in favor of the appellants, we do not think it necessary to enter into the merits of the case. - E/343/2008 - Final Order No.43179/2017 - Dated:- 18-12-2017 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri Raghavan Ramabhadran, Advocate for the Appellant Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Per Bench The appellant is a manufacturer of cotton woven fabric and cotton yarn. They procure single yarn from their sister units, job workers or from suppliers and process them into yarns of various categories such as double yarn, twisted yarn, grey fabrics, cotton fabrics etc. They avail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the show cause notice stating that the appellant has disclosed the goods as finished goods in their Profit Loss Account for the financial year 2003-04 and trial balance for the year 2004-05. That therefore the stock declared as inputs, work in process, were in fact not inputs to finished goods and that therefore the appellant is not eligible for the deemed credit to the tune of ₹ 11,05,246/-. He explained that the impugned goods in stock were inputs used for further processing / manufacture of finished goods. For example, the cotton yarn (single) is further processed to manufacture double yarns and two for-one twisted yarn which are in-turn used in manufacture of grey fabrics and processed fabrics. These were not finished product ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd the normal period of limitation. The documents relied by the department are the appellant s declaration dated 10.5.2003, P L account for the year ending 31.3.2003 and the trial balance for the period ending 31.3.2004. All these documents were well within the knowledge of the department and are public documents. Therefore, the allegation of the department that the appellant has suppressed facts with intent to evade payment of duty is without any factual basis. It is also submitted by the ld. counsel that audit was conducted in 2005. That when the appellant has declared all details, necessary documents and when the department was aware of the declaration of deemed credit, made by the appellants, the show cause notice issued after a period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... department has not conducted any physical verification after such declaration. After a lapse of almost four years, basing upon the P L account of 2003, the department has issued the show cause notice. The allegation is that in the P L account, the quantity of finished goods declared would include the quantity of inputs declared by them in the declaration filed by them on 10.5.2003. That therefore the deemed credit to the tune of ₹ 11,05,246/- is not eligible and appellant have thus availed excess deemed credit. It is not disputed that an audit was conducted in 2005. Further, show cause notice is issued on the basis of the appellant s own documents. The appellant having furnished details and also having reflected all the details in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
