9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 1051X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t such delay was tolerated by the supervisory authority. It is also no less surprising that the officials engaged in EA 2000 Audit did not consider it necessary to ascertain the cause of such unalloyed breach of conditions; perhaps the nomenclature, permanently linked to its conception, is responsible for depriving it of the robustness that audit should be imbued with if it is to have continued relevance. The authority concerned would do well to give some thought to this. There is no allegation of mis-utilization of the input goods or that these were used for manufacture of non-entitled output goods. It is not found appropriate to uphold the impugned order in the light of the factual circumstances in which inputs were stored in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng by central excise authorities. It was pointed out that the earlier proposal was rejected in letter dated 18th October 2010 even as the other remained undisposed. Learned Counsel informed that the rejected proposal was, upon reconsideration at the instance of the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise, revived and, along with the pending proposal, approved for incorporation in the registration on 6th June 2011. 3. He submitted that EA 2000 Audit was carried out on 21 st February 2011 and, on the objection dated 30th March 2011 culminating in the impugned order, the appellant was directed to reverse the credit availed for the period. He further submits that there is no dispute on the credit having been taken on inputs as wel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Most surprising of all is that the adjudicating Commissioner, despite taking note of the facts narrated in response to show cause notice, preferred to gloss over the unexplained delay on the part of his own organization and consequential illegitimizing of the availment credit, has, in what can be charitably described, disposed the adjudicating obligation mechanically. It would also appear that the substantive difference between insistence upon conditions of exemption notification, which the case law relied upon by him pertain to, and scheme of credit has not been appreciated by the adjudicating authority. 6. There is no allegation of mis-utilization of the input goods or that these were used for manufacture of non-entitled output goods. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to grant permission to store the duty paid inputs outside the factory. As per Board s Circular dated 1-5-1996 the Commissioner can grant permission to the manufacturer for storage of modvatable goods outside the factory premises. We find that the appellant was repeatedly writing to the Commissioner for grant of permission. From the record we find from 1997 to 2003 appellant wrote 12 letters and ultimately the permission was granted. The mere inaction on the part of the Revenue authorities on the request made by the assessee cannot be made basis for penalising the manufacturer. In the facts and circumstances of the case as the appellants were rightly asking for permission which was ultimately granted after six years, the confiscation of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
