9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 690X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the kind involved in the present case are normal and the counter-argument of the Revenue that such loss is high, has not been proved with any supporting scientific evidences. This assumes importance when there is no allegation of diversion or man-made loss. For this reason, the matter requires a fresh adjudication, requiring the supporting documents as indicated above to be placed on record. Appeal allowed by way of remand. - E/40359, 40360, 40361/2018 - 42576-42578/2018 - Dated:- 3-10-2018 - Shri P Dinesha, Member (Judicial) For the Appellant : Shri. Joseph Prabakar, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri. R. Subramaniyan, AC (AR) ORDER The assessee/appellant is in the business of manufacture of various gases falling ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se Notice No. 29/2015 dated 03.09.2015 was issued covering the period from August, 2014 to July, 2015. The appellant offered its explanations dated 07.04.2014, 08.01.2015 and 26.10.2015 respectively to the above Show Cause Notice, but however, the adjudicating authority vide common Order-in-Original Nos. 5 to 7/2016 dated 21.12.2016 confirmed the proposals against which appeals were preferred before the Commissioner of G.S.T. Central Excise (Appeals-I), Chennai, who vide common impugned Order-in-appeal No. 310/2017 dated 10.11.2017 has rejected the grievance of the appellant and therefore, the appellant is before this forum. 2. During the course of hearing Shri. Joseph Prabakar, Ld. Advocate, appeared for the appellant and Shri. R. Sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant; that there was no intent to evade any payment of duty or wrongly avail and utilize the CENVAT Credit; that the following decisions have, in an identical set of circumstances, given the benefit to the assessees therein : C.C.E., Nagpur Vs. Ispat Industries Ltd. 2012 (275) E.L.T. 0235 (Tri. Bom.); C.C.E., Chennai Vs. Bhuwalka Steel Industries Ltd. 2010 (249) E.L.T. 218 (Tri. LB); Ganges Valley Foods (P) Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Kolkata 2007 (217) E.L.T. 147; SRF Ltd. Vs. C.C.E, Gwalior 2006 (196) E.L.T. 293, etc. 4.1 Per contra, Ld. DR Shri. R. Subramaniyan submitted that as pointed out in the Annexure to the Show Cause Notices, the percentage of loss/shortage is abnormal which has not been explained either before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... recording of measurements due to human and mechanical error. (vi) The loss reported in some cases as per Annexures to the Show Cause Notice are huge. (vii) Reversal of CENVAT Credit was made just a day before the filing of the first appeal before the lower appellate authority and even if the abnormal losses are ignored, still the reported losses are quite high. 6. Admittedly, the extent of loss having not been addressed in the statute, the same has been allowed by various courts considering the nature of goods involved. Going by the same ratios, I am also of the view that such loss cannot be ruled out and the assessee-appellant herein should also get the benefit of the same. But, at the same time, the argument of the Ld. Advocate t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
