9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1798X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a of the Learned Counsel of non-consideration of the evidences and contentions placed before the adjudicating authority warrants the the demands, as well as rejection of refund, be considered afresh. The matter remanded to the respective original authorities for determination of the claim for reversal of credit availed on invoices pertains to goods - appeal allowed by way of remand. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... b work but not returned, misclassification of 'forgings' under heading no. 7207, instead of heading no. 7326, of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 leading to short-payment of duty of ₹ 62,42,678/- and failure to reverse CENVAT credit of ₹ 3,98,135/-. Besides the rejection of claim for refund against cancelled invoices and of credit availed, in the other two appeals, the appeal of the assessee against the order of adjudicating authority also involves availment of credit of ₹ 25,87,903/- against invoices that the not correspond to the receipt of goods 2. Learned Counsel for appellant contends that the alleged failure to return scrap from the job-workers' end was justified as these were nothing but material loss occurring duri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herein it has been held '3.. There is no liability on the principal manufacturer -respondent after 31st March 2000 in view of amended Rule 57 AC of the CENVAT Credit Rules. In view of this finding of fact, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal...' Respectfully following this decision, the demand on account of scrap not returned from the premises of job worker fails. 4. The second issue, involving duty liability of ₹ 62,42,678/-, arises from alleged misclassification as elaborated supra. According to Learned Counsel, neither the show cause notice nor the impugned order appear to have examined the scope of the rival headings for determination of the appropriate fit for the goods manufactured by the appellant. It is hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned by the assessee and the individual, the sole issue that remains is the availment of credit of ₹ 25,87,903/- between April 2002 and September 2004 on selfgenerated invoices without actual receipt of goods. It is the contention of Learned Counsel that the invoices had been wrongly generated as there was no outward dispatch and that availment of credit against these, by recording the goods as having been returned, is merely a manner of correction. It is further contended by him that the Manual of Supplementary Instructions of Central Board of Excise & Customs permits cancellation of invoices and that their several submissions had not been considered by the adjudicating authority. It would also appear that the imposition of penalty ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... liance on the decision of the Tribunal in Compton Greaves Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-III [final order no. A/86073/2019 dated 4th June 2019 disposing of appeal no. E/2048/2010] to emphasise that refund cannot be availed through CENVAT credit account except in accordance with the procedure laid down by section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944. He points out that a similar issue had been decided by a Larger Bench of the Tribunal in BDH Industries Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai-I [2008 (229) ELT 364 (Tri-LB)]. On the imposition of penalty on the individual-appellant, Learned Authorised Representative relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs, Kandla v. Essar Oil L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
