9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1712X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eir customers under rule 16(1) of the Central Excise Rules 2002 read with Rule 9 of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004. With respect to these goods, the allegation is that the appellants have not shown in their RG23 Part- I Register that the goods were returned by their customers and were accounted for. Therefore the CENVAT credit of these goods is ineligible and has to be recovered. b) The appellant stopped production after March 2012. Their RG 23-A part II register was verified and it showed a negative balance of Rs. 12,613/- which shows that they have cleared goods debiting duty form RG 23 A Part-II, when none was available. It was proposed to recover this amount under Section 11 AA along with interest. c) After March 2012, the appellant stopp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the appellant argues that Rule 16(1) requires the assessee to state particulars of receipt of goods in his records and shall be entitled to take CENVAT credit of the duty paid as if such inputs are received as inputs under CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 and he can utilise the credit according to the said Rules. He argues that although they have not entered the details of the receipt of goods in their RG 23 A part-I, they have maintained a separate register showing the receipt and have taken credit of the duty paid in their RG 23A Part-II. Not entering the details in input stock register RG 23A part I is at best a technical mistake and they should not be denied substantive benefit of the credit for such a mistake. Regarding the negative balance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entered in the RG 23 A Part-I in contravention of Rule 16 of CENVAT Credit Rules read with Rule 9 of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004. During personal hearing, the appellant had produced invoices before the adjudicating authority on the basis of which they had taken credit and also a separate register maintained by them for the purposes. The adjudicating authority recorded in his order-in-original that "on perusal of the register, which was submitted vide annexure-1" it is observed that they have maintained a separate register for returned goods but the same was not incorporated in the input stock register of RG 23 A Part-1. The adjudicating authority denied credit on these goods as they have not followed the requirement under Rule 16 of Central E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oved using the fixed formula without accounting for the process loss. The decision was that process loss must be reckoned. Such is not the case here and the ratio does not apply to this case because allegation here is that whatever stock of raw-material was shown in the register by the appellant was not found in stock when physically verified. I find no force in the arguments of the appellant that we should presume that he had wrongly entered the figures and then assume a process loss and then assume that the stock found is attributable to such process loss and allow credit for the same. When the department checked the stock and found that 35.525 MTs of raw-material was not available physically but was available in their RG23A Part-I regist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
