9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 107X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deemed credit on inputs and semi-finished goods lying in stock as on 31.3.2003 in terms of Notification No. 35/2003-CE (NT) dated 10.4.2003. As required under Rule 9A(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002, the appellant declared the value of excisable goods lying in stock as on 31.3.2003 vide their letter dated 8.4.2003. Due to errors in the above declaration, they filed revised declaration vide letter dated 10.5.2003. Thus, they declared the deemed credit to the tune of Rs. 17,04,743/-. On perusal of profit and loss account for the year ending 31.3.2003 and the trial balance for the year 31.3.2004, it was found that the stock lying as on 31.3.2003 on which deemed credit was availed by the appellant was not correct and the appellant had avail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stock for use in further manufacture. From the P&L account, it is clear that the stock was not mentioned in their description but was mentioned corresponding to the place where they were lying. The department has presumed these products to be finished products merely by what is mentioned in P&L account without any evidence to corroborate the same. The nomenclature finished goods used in P&L account and the term finished product for the purpose of Central Excise cannot be equated. While all the completed goods lying in stock will be treated as finished goods for accounting purposes, they will be finished goods for the purpose of central excise only after other process such as packing etc. which are to be completed to make the goods into mar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... invoking extended period of limitation is unjustified and he submitted that the same may be set aside. 4. Against this, the ld. AR Shri B. Balamurugan, reiterated the findings in the impugned order. He submitted that in the P&L account for the year 31.3.2003 and the trial balance for the period ending 31.3.2004, it was stated by the appellant that the stock lying as on 31.3.2003 was shown different from that of what the appellant had declared vide their letter dated 10.5.2003. Other than the Chartered Accountant s certificate, the appellant have not produced any evidence. The appellant having mis-declared the finished goods lying in stock are guilty of suppression of facts. The credit taken was on the basis of self-declaration. The discre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lance, cannot be held guilty of fraud or suppression or mis-declaration of facts, especially when the department relies upon the very same documents to demand the duty. We find that the department has failed to establish suppression of facts or willful mis-statement with intent to evade payment of duty. The ld. counsel has relied upon following case law:- (a) Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Krishna Terne (P) Ltd. - 2012 (279) ELT 420 (b) Omega Alloys Castings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise - 1994 (71) ELT 923 (c) Anantpur Textiles Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise - 1994 (72) ELT 48 7. In Krishna Terine (P) Ltd. (supra), the issue arising for consideration was whether CENVAT credit under Notification No. 35/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
