9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 1260X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... removal of granules under the guise of waste and scrap. Therefore, there is a force in the submission of the learned counsel that once again demand of the same removal was made showing in Annexure C for which the demand was computed in Annexure E1. However, there is a duplication of demand in respect of 10 Invoices which are appearing in Annexure A as well as Annexure C since the department has made out the demand even for Annexure C, considering Annexure B therefore, it is implied that the Annexure A has been considered in Annexure B that is the reason that no separate demand was raised in Annexure A. The 10 invoices which are common in Annexure A C demand in respect of those invoices needs to be reduced from the total demand of ͅ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Removal of Film grade granules as such clandestinely which is not capable of being used in the manufacture of final product on which the demand of ₹ 13,31,112/- was raised. (iii) During the stock taking there was a shortage of 4.90 MT. Tons on which the demand of ₹ 60,766/- was raised. During the investigation, as evidence, the DGCEI Officers found some diaries in their office wherein, the detail of removal of granules as such was recorded. On the basis of this evidence the total demand of ₹ 23,43,527/- was confirmed. 02. Shri Mukund Chauhan, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that they are not disputing the demand of ₹ 9,51,649/- ₹ 60,766/-. However, he strongly disputed th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e sides and perused the records. The demands are made in three parts as given in the above facts. The demand of ₹ 9,51,649/- ₹ 60,766/- are not disputed by the learned counsel hence, in this demand there is no need of any discussion. Accordingly, these demands of ₹ 9,51,649/- ₹ 60,766/- are upheld along with interest and 25% penalty which the appellant had already paid. As regard the demand of ₹ 13,31,112/-, I find that the demand was raised on the removal of granules as such on the basis of Annexure C on the ground that the granules are of film grade which cannot be used in the manufacture of the final product of the appellant. 4.1 I find that there is also evidence i.e. Diaries recovered from the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the factory therefore, it is clear that it was sold directly. This statement has not been retracted nor the appellant has cross-examined the witness. Therefore, on the basis of this statement it is clear that the granules for which Cenvat amount of ₹ 4,41,142/- the same quantity was not used in the manufacture therefore, Cenvat Credit on this ground is not available to the appellant. Hence, the demand of ₹ 4,41,142/-, interest and penalty is upheld. The adjudicating authority is at liberty to re-quantify the demand and communicate to the appellant. On communication of the department, the appellant is at liberty to pay the said amount along with interest and 25% penalty within a period of one month from the communication from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
