9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 830X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne-I vide Order-in-Original dated 20/27-01-2012, vide which he has confirmed the recovery of inadmissible credit of Rs. 12,25,242/-, recovery of interest and also imposed penalty. Being aggrieved by the said Order-in-Original, the appellants filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who has upheld the Order-in-Original dated 20/27-01-2012. Therefore, the present appeal filed by the appellants. 3. Ms. Payal Nahar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant at the outset submits that in view of large magnitude of business they have adopted sophisticated computer based accounting system to ensure accuracy and efficiency. All the receipts of inputs are made at receipt point where the consignments are inwarded and after checking of quality and invoiced quantity, Goods Inward Note is prepared then the acceptable inputs are stored in the allotted Bins. In nutshell, all transactions are properly documented. In these circumstances, only reasons for variation of stock is picking up wrong LH/RH parts, dispatch of alternate parts, incorrect posting to alternate parts etc. Also errors may be in noting down the various types of parts during physical stock verification, parts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment of duty from their factory. Therefore, even though there is any shortage or excess, the input was available within the factory premises or consumed in the production. This issue has been considered by this Tribunal in the appellant's own case as follows: - (i) Tata Motors Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax (LTU), Mumbai - 2019 (7) TMI 1797-CESTAT-Mumbai 3. We have heard learned counsel for the Appellant and learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue and perused the records of the case including the synopsis and the case laws cited by the respective sides. Learned counsel submits that considering the magnitude of their operations the shortages are meagre/ negligible and therefore Cenvat credit on the same should not be denied. According to him in view of large magnitude of their operations, it is not practicable to have conventional method of book keeping i.e. to receive, store and issue inputs and strike balance of these transactions on daily basis in a register. In order to handle such volume of transactions, they have put in place sophisticated computer based accounting system to ensure accuracy and efficient. The entries regarding receipt of i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng put to use, on which CENVAT credit has been taken is written of fully or where any provision to write off fully has been made in the books of accounts, then the manufacturer or service provider, as the case may be, shall pay an amount equivalent to the CENVAT credit taken in respect of the said input or capital goods. A plain reading of the said rule makes it clear that it is applicable only in cases where goods are available in the factory and only a book entry has been made to write off the value of the said goods, which is not the allegation of the department against the Appellant. 5. The magnitude of the inputs used and discrepancy which arose because of various factors, on that basis it is stated on behalf of the appellants that when the shortage of inputs is only 0.59%, that would be immaterial and correction of the total input is in use. It is settled principle that Tax Authorities should go by the normal commercial practice. We are also aware about the submission of learned counsel that this was due to accounting errors and there was no "shortage" in fact as in respect of many inputs even stocks in excess was found and also some of the parts which were not available at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appeal filed by the appellants is allowed with consequential relief as per law, if any. (ii) Tata Motors Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise - 2017 (345) ELT 653 (T) 5. I find that there is discrepancy in the inventory of input on which Cenvat credit being taken by the appellant but discrepancy is only to the extent of 0.08%. It cannot be ruled out that in a big industry, there is always possibility of minor variations in the stock, which occurred due to human error. Moreover, in the present case neither there is any charge nor any evidence to show that differences in input inventory is either due to short receipt or cleared from factory clandestinely. In such a situation, even if there is shortage of input, the same must be lying in the factory. On the identical issue in the appellant's own case cited by the ld. Counsel, this Tribunal has decided the issue relying on the decision of Maruti Udyog Ltd. [2004 (173) E.L.T. 382 (Tri.-Del.)] which was upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2015 (319) E.L.T. 549 (S.C.) held as under : 4.1 I find that the case of the appellant is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Maruti Udyog (supra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also, that the shortages are not the result of any clandestine or unauthorised utilisation of the inputs. The shortages thrown up also do not account for much. The appellants' Management as well as its auditor have accepted the differences between the physical stocks and the procurement as normal and something to be put up with. It is a very small (0.24%) fraction of the inputs received. It is well settled that Tax Authorities also should go by the normal commercial and professional practice. If the shortages are within the tolerance limits fixed by an efficient Management and certified to as within the norms by qualified accounting professionals, it would be unreasonable and unfair for Tax authorities to take a different view. In these circumstances, we are of the view that there is no evidence to sustain a finding that this is a case of irregular or incorrect taking or utilisation of credit. In such a situation, no demand can be raised under Rule 57-I. The demand is accordingly, set aside and appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellant. Amounts already deposited by the appellant, on account of this dispute, shall be returned to it." Hon'ble Supreme Court wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
