9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 781X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quantity of the goods received. It is only with regard to the variation in the description of the goods in the dealers invoice. Demand cannot sustain - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. E/329/2012 - Final Order No. 43074/2018 - Dated:- 11-12-2018 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) Shri R. Balagopal, Consultant for the Appellant Shri L. Nandakumar, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Brief facts are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of cast articles of iron and steel and are having Central Excise registration. They are availing the facility of CENVAT credit of inputs, capital goods etc. They purchased inputs from central excise registered dealers under CENVAT credi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... within the very same Tariff heading as of waste and scrap and there is no separate Tariff heading for CI borings. The goods are generally known as waste and scrap and in specific it may be known as CI borings. Since the appellant had placed purchase order for CI borings and had received CI borings, the same was noted in the MIN. Only for the difference in the description of the goods, the demand has been raised. He adverted to the relevant Tariff regarding waste and scrap under 72044900 and submitted that the rate of duty for such waste and scrap is 8%. There is no separate heading for CI borings and therefore the appellant does not gain anything by the difference in the description of the goods. With regard to the statement of Shri Selva ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd any reason for the appellant to have any intention to avail fraudulent credit. The very variation in the description of the goods in the dealers invoice as well as the material inward notes cannot be a ground for alleging that the appellant has availed fraudulent credit. There is no allegation with respect to the difference in quantity of the goods received. It is only with regard to the variation in the description of the goods in the dealers invoice. It is also important to note that though the department has relied upon the statement of Shri Selva Lakshmanan, the said person has not been put to cross-examination even though the appellant had requested for the same. Taking into consideration all these facts, I am of the view that the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
