9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 470X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant. - E/318 & 452/2008 - A/30349-30350/2018 - Dated:- 30-1-2018 - Mr. M. V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) and Mr. Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Sh. R. Parthasarthy, Advocate for the Appellant. Sh. N.V. Subramanyan, (Superintendent) for the Respondent. ORDER These two appeals are challenging the Order-in-Original No.27/2007-C.EX dated 31.12.2007. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. On perusal of records, it transpires that appeal No. E/318/2008 is filed by the appellant assessee M/s Madras Cement Ltd., and appeal No. E/452/2008 is filed by the revenue. 4. Since both the appeals arise out of the same Order-in-Original there are disposed a common order. 5. The relevant facts that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... les 2004. The provisions of Rule 15 will come into play only if on assessee / manufacturer avails wrong credit and utilization of the same. We find the Impugned Order that imposes the penalty of ₹ 30 lakh on the appellant is unsustainable by any strange of imagines more so, for reason that Adjudicating Authority has not recorded even a single sentence of reasoning for impose such a penalty. The appeal of assessee is allowed and the Impugned Order to the extent contested by the appellant assessee is set aside. 7. As regards the revenue appeals, we find that the revenue has challenged the findings on the ground that the Adjudicating Authority has over looked the fact that the inputs are cleared from manufacturer's premises in lo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of certify transported from Chennai Port to their various factories. This Chartered Accounts Certificate was also considered by the Adjudicating Authority in the Impugned Order. We find that the Adjudicating Authority while arriving at the conclusion that proceeding initiated by the Show Cause Notice needs to be dropped has recorded the following findings. 16. However, from the perusal of the documents, I find that the assessee brought the goods (Petroleum Coke) under the cover of the Commercial Invoices raised by their Head office duly supported by Lorry Receipts, consignment Notes, etc. It is also seen that all the receipt of goods were duly accounted for in their books of accounts. I also find that the assessee was in possession ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cuments get relegated to the second place. Therefore, I prefer to consider the 'actual receipt' of the goods to the documents 'actually received' at that time. For this reason only, I do hot propose to take up the confiscation of the goods under question under the 1st part of Rule 15. 19. Now, I turn to the question of endorsement of Invoices for sending the goods ahead of the point mentioned originally in the Invoices. I find that the Corporate / Head Office had endorsed them on the back of each of the Invoices. Obviously and admittedly the consignments of Pet Coke received by the assessee were in loose condition and in part consignments. The goods emanating from Jamnagar lost their identity by the time they reached ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
