9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1051X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he manufacture of M.S. Bars/Angles falling under Chapter 72 of Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They were using M.S. Ingots, M.S. Billets, Mis-rolls as inputs. They were availing facility of Cenvat credit. On 28.08.2008 officers of Central Excise conducted stock taking of finished goods and inputs in the factory of the appellant in presence of Shri Anil Sharma, Authorized Signatory. On the basis of the said stock taking two show cause notices were issued. Through the show cause notice dated 25.02.2009 appellants were called upon to show cause, as to why their final products TMT/CTD Bar and M.S. Strip valued at Rs. 5,32,00,317/- seized by Central Excise officers on 28.08.2008 found in excess in the factory premises should not be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Ingots was 1034 MT and not 103.425 MT as recorded by the officers. The original authority did not appreciate the submissions and confiscated the finished goods which were lying in the factory and not entered in the RG-1 register and imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 80 lakhs. He further confirmed the Cenvat credit demand of Rs. 1,32,68,939/- involved in 3666.040 MT of the alleged shortage of inputs. He ordered for appropriation of Rs. 76,71,486/- already paid by the appellant. The Original Authority imposed penalty of Rs. 80 lakhs under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 on the appellant and imposed another penalty of Rs. 1,32,68,939/- under Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 on the appellant. The Original authority also imposed a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... factory are unaccounted and not entered in the statutory records since 21-7-2007 and till the date of visit that is 3-8-2010. On the basis of these, intent was drawn that these were lying in the factory for clandestine removal of the goods. No corroborative evidence has been produced by the Revenue to establish the intent of the appellant to remove the goods clandestinely. Therefore, following the decisions discussed here in above namely Steel Complex Ltd., Mutual Mecaplast Ltd. and Pharma Indiana Laboratory (supra) I hold that in this case provisions of Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 have not been complied with. Therefore, goods are not liable for confiscation. Consequently, redemption fine and penalty is not imposable on the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itted that Cenvat credit is on receipt of duty paid inputs. So long as it is not established that inputs were not received or so long it is not established that the received inputs were removed without reversal of Cenvat credit, Cenvat credit cannot be recovered under provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 4. Heard the learned A.R. for revenue who has supported the impugned Order-in-Original. 5. Having considered the rival contentions and on perusal of records, we find that the submissions made by the learned counsel for appellants are sustainable in law. The duty is on manufacture and the payment of duty is differed till such time the goods are not removed from the factory. The alleged excess quantity of finished goods lying in the fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
