9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 890X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the appellant-assessee that the appellant-assessee is not manufacturer is made on the basis of assumption and presumptions - Demand rightly dropped. Demand of duty on the goods worth of ₹ 58,11,850/- which were destroyed and sold scrap by the appellant-assessee for ₹ 35 lacs on which the appellant-assessee has paid duty of ₹ 5,71,200/- - Held that:- The sale value of ₹ 35 lacs is to be considered cum duty price as the appellant discharged duty correctly. Availment of credit of ₹ 4,44,410/- - appellant has conceded the same - Held that:- The said demand of ₹ 4,44,410/- is confirmed. Benefit of reduced penalty - Held that:- Considering that during the adjudication, no option of reduced penalty gi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... actory preemies of the appellant- assessee was searched and it was found closed on 28.4.2006. During the course of search various statements were recorded and stock taking was done and on the basis of investigation it was alleged that the appellant-assessee was not manufacturer of the goods and availed inadmissible credit of ₹ 7,73,34,545/-. It was also alleged that the finished goods worth of ₹ 58,11,850/- sold by the appellant-assessee for ₹ 35 lacs as scrap on which a duty of ₹ 10,92,085/- was payable by the appellant-assessee including credit on raw material cleared as such was alleged to be recovered from the appellant-assessee. The matter was adjudicated and on further investigation, the adjudicating authority ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see was not manufacturer is not sustainable. Moreover, in the appellant s own case in another proceedings against the appellant to deny the Cenvat credit on furnace oil without actual receipt of the said inputs in their factory, this Tribunal vide Final Order NO.A/62335-62336/2018-EX (DB) dt.14.3.2018 allowed Cenvat credit to the appellant-assessee. Therefore, it cannot be said that during the impugned period, the appellant-assessee was not manufacturer of forging/casting which were cleared to merchant exporter. Therefore, the adjudicating authority has rightly dropped the demand of ₹ 7,73,34,545/-. 4. He further submits that the goods of worth ₹ 58,11,850/- were destroyed and sold as scrap by the appellant-assessee for ͅ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds during the impugned period. Moreover, in the appellant s own case in another proceeding, a show cause notice issued to the appellant to deny the credit on furnace oil. In the show cause notice, there was no allegation against the appellant-assessee that the appellant-assessee was not manufacturer. Therefore, the allegation of the Revenue against the appellant-assessee that the appellant-assessee is not manufacturer is made on the basis of assumption and presumptions. In that circumstance, we hold that the Commissioner has rightly dropped the demand of ₹ 7,73,34,545/. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. 9. With regard to the demand of duty on the goods worth of ₹ 58,11,850/- which were des ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
