9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 424X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned and failure to do so is dereliction on the part of the adjudicating authority as central excise authority having jurisdiction over the factory of the appellant. Choosing to style alleged non-intimation of transfer as sufficing to deny credit also demonstrates failure to cite the authority under which the appellant was required to intimate such transfer. Under the scheme of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, taking of credit is permitted on receipt of goods in factory, subject to such variations as permitted therein, and not to be denied if availed against proper documentations. Any allegation of non-receipt of such capital goods at factory, in contradistinction with non-availability that may be justified with explanations subject to asce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yment of duty, the first appellate authority reduced the demand by ₹ 37,061. Several other explanations and justification had been offered before the adjudicating authority which was discarded then and the first appellate authority was not inclined to accept those factual submissions which were rejected as afterthought, on unreliability of certificate of chartered engineer who had been contracted by the appellant and that physical verification did not evince the presence of the impugned capital goods. 3. The pleas of the appellant, in proceedings initiated by notice of January 2011, were made in the specific context of the factory having ceased to function by the time of the audit visit in August/September 2008 and absence explaine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... test of ascertainment. We refer to the submissions on inclusion in returns filed by the appellant before income tax authorities. 6. The physical verification of imported machinery was undertaken after closure of the factory. There is no reference in the orders of the lower authorities to audit having included physical verification of these; in any case, their existence at the sister units could well have been ascertained and failure to do so is dereliction on the part of the adjudicating authority as central excise authority having jurisdiction over the factory of the appellant. Choosing to style alleged non-intimation of transfer as sufficing to deny credit also demonstrates failure to cite the authority under which the appellant was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
