9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 515X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een invoked; on the other hand it doesn’t explain difference in closing stock as at the end of the year and the opening stock as of next year. On being pointed out, it admits the duty liability but gives a working as to correct duty liability. Had there not been the show cause notice, the appellant would not have come forward so gratefully, as there would not have arisen any occasion for an assessee to do so, voluntarily. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - Appeal No. E/42758/2018 - FINAL ORDER No. 40406/2019 - Dated:- 6-3-2019 - Shri P. Dinesha, Member (Judicial) Shri R. Janardhanan Pillai, Consultant for the Appellant Shri L. Nandakumar, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER This is the second round of liti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmissioner (Appeals) for denovo consideration in the light of specific directions vide Final Order No. 1308/2010 dated 28.12.2010. But, the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected vide impugned order without addressing main grounds canvassed before it. The actual duty liability was ₹ 2,79,578/- against which ₹ 1,15,444/- having already been paid, the SCN should have proposed the demand of the balance alone but, the same having proposed to recover the entire amount of ₹ 2,79,578/- is therefore bad being contrary to Section 11 2B of the Act. He submitted that the present impugned order is not sustainable either on the ground of demand being hit by limitation or on the ground of merits. He submitted that the period involved ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2017 (349) ELT 781 (Tri. All.) d) CCE Vs. Gokuldas2011 (270) ELT 351 (Kar.) e) Tansi Fabrication Works2018 (17) GSTL 429 (Mad.) Ld. Consultant submitted that in the present case also there is no allegation that the credit taken was not legal and no allegation of wrong availment of credit. Suppression of fact is not proved as the records maintained by the assessee reflected the transactions made where there should not be any penal action and invocation of extended period of limitation. 3. Per contra, Ld. DR, Shri L. Nandakumar, AC, supported the findings of the lower authorities. He drew my attention to the Order of the Commissioner (Appeals) at paragraphs 8-10 to say that remand order dated 28.12.2010 spelt out two specific area ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... done voluntarily and without waiting for the SCN. But the fact remains that there was short payment of duty as on the date of their reply to SCN. This is sufficient proof of non-payment of duty/withholding/short payment of duty which is paid after SCN and after admitting their liability to pay balance if any, to be paid . State is entitled to get what is rightfully due to it, hece a SCN came to be issued in this case demanding duty. The above fact of admission of balance if any, to be paid by the appellant has only proved suppression and hence, it is too difficult to accept appellant s proposition that there was no suppression or that invoking extended period was wrong. 4.4 Further, in the subsequent paragraph/s appellant also indica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acts and omissions are not beyond suspicion. 4.7 Rule 11 (2) prescribes guidelines to be followed in the case of a manufacturer opting for exemption under CENVAT scheme, under Notification No. 8/2003 dated 01.03.2003. In the case on hand, there is an observation by the adjudicating authority that the value of closing stock as on 31.03.2005 as indicated by the appellant vide its letter dated 01.04.2005 was ₹ 1,03,975/-. On verification of P L account of the appellant, the closing stock as on 31.03.2005 was ₹ 17,47,361/- as against the actual figure informed to the revenue. I find from their reply that there is no dispute raised as to the above findings of such a serious mismatch between the closing stock and opening stock, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
