9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 700X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which are been finally dropped by the court below. Further, this Tribunal found that the demand of ₹ 25,705/- is not sustainable and the same have been raised by misconception, as regards treatment of normal loss. Taking of lesser credit due to normal loss - also receipt of marginally excess quantity than that mentioned in the invoices/bill of entry - HELD THAT:- There is no Mala fide on the part of the appellant as they have taken less credit in case of normal loss of the quantity, and have erroneously taken excess credit for the normal gain or excess quantity received. Extended period of limitation is not available to revenue. The impugned order in appeal is set aside so far it have confirmed the demand and penalty - Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of ₹ 2,843 (₹ 2760 + 55 + 2 8), which have already been paid by them, but credit would be available to that extent only which has actually been paid or deposited by the CHA the service provider, to the government. That the excess service tax amount availed as credit, appeared liable to be recovered. 3. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of detergent cake of Tide brand belonging to Procter Gamble (India) Ltd. They are paying duty on raw material plus for job charges. It further appeared that appellant have taken excess cenvat credit of ₹ 25,705 being additional duty or CVD for the year 2007-2009, whereas they had received some short quantity of chemical volatile in nature than as mentioned in the invoice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 24.10.07 30.000 32.040 2.040 2,85,747 5715 2858 - 120441/- 09.01.08 60.000 64.350 4.350 585285 11705 5853 - Cenvat Difference of excess credit taken Actual Cenvat Credit taken by the Noticee 16% 2% 1% 4% 16% 2% 1% Total ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imposed. 7. Being aggrieved the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal. 8. Heard the parties. 8.1 The appellant Counsel, Mr. Ankur Upadhyay, Advocate urges that they do not press the demand of ₹ 3,175, the same being small in nature and also the relevant supporting documents with them are not available. 8.2 As regards the demand of ₹ 25,705 it is urged that admittedly appellant have taken the credit of additional duty, which is as per the invoice/bill of entry. It is urged that the raw material in question is a chemical having volatile nature, and there is bound to be some loss in transit, which is a normal loss. Accordingly revenue is not justified in confirming the demand on the ground that appellant should ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taken by the Tribunal, observing that there is no dispute of any diversion of the goods covered under the invoices in question, and entire goods were received under consignment, have not been put to any use other than as input in the end product manufactured by the assessee and the transit loss was found by the Tribunal to be normal loss due to evaporation, it must be held that the CVD paid by the consignor/importer was paid in respect of the goods, entirely used by the assessee as input in the manufacture of the end product. It was further observed that Rule 57 G envisages that such amount of modvat credit availed by the assessee which is evident by the invoices, has inherent correlation with the payment of duty with the goods, covered by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rded the transactions in the books of accounts and statutory registers in the normal course of business. Further appellant have filed the returns regularly. Further no malafide have been attributed and/or alleged in the show cause notice save and except the only charges, that if the audit had not taken place, these facts would not have come to notice, resulting in loss of revenue. 9. Opposing the appeal, ld. Authorised Representative for the Revenue supports the impugned order. 10. Having considered the rival contentions I find that the appellant is registered with the Department and have maintained proper books of accounts and registers. I further find that the issue involved herein is wholly interpretational in nature. I further fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
