9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 318X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts, is a possible view and no interference would be warranted. CENVAT Credit - Held that:- The question of law as proposed completely ignores the fact that proceedings for recovery of Cenvat Credit and imposition of penalty have been taken in terms of Rule 14 and 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 read with Sections 11A and 11AC of the Act. Thus, taking of Cenvat Credit on inputs which was found to have not been received would justify the present proceedings. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 262 OF 2017 - - - Dated:- 1-10-2018 - M.S. SANKLECHA RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, JJ. Mr. Vivek Khemka i/b. Neerav Mainkar, for the Appellant. Mr. Sham Walve with Mr. Ram Ochani, for the Respondent. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (a) The Officer of the Respondent visited the Appellant's factory and on conducting stocktaking, found a shortage of 200.278 MTS of raw materials from that recorded in the books. At the time of stocktaking, a Panchnama was drawn in the presence of the partners and the Manager of the Appellant-firm, whose statement was also recorded under Section 14 of the Act. Neither in the Panchanama nor in the statements, did Appellant's partner and manager dispute the shortage of 200.278 MT of raw material found in stock. In fact, the Appellant paid the Cenvat Credit availed on such shortage within three days of the detection of the shortage. (b) Consequent to the above, a show cause notice was issued to the Appellant, proposing confirm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ken by the Appellant long after the date of the stocktaking i.e. only in response to the show cause notice. Moreover, it is to be noted that at the time when the objection was taken, it would not be possible to reverse the clock and direct physical stocktaking to determine the shortage on the date when the 200.278 MT of raw material, was found short. 5. Thus, the view taken by the Tribunal on facts, is a possible view and no interference would be warranted. 6. Moreover, the question of law as proposed completely ignores the fact that proceedings for recovery of Cenvat Credit and imposition of penalty have been taken in terms of Rule 14 and 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 read with Sections 11A and 11AC of the Act. Thus, taking of Cenva ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
