9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 1159X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The department has not adduced any evidence to substantiate the allegation that the Appellant has availed excess credit on the inputs and paid less duty at the time of clearance of the inputs as such . In the grounds of appeal, the department stated that the Appellant themselves are manufacturers of pure lead ingot of a quantity more than required for its captive consumption. Hence, there was no necessity for importing the pure lead ingot and then re-selling the same in the market - the allegation is very strange. In business, there is nothing wrong in manufacturing one product and importing the same to meet the market requirement. If there is any malafide intention in it, the department should have brought it out clearly with evidence. M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ANPAZHAKAN MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri S. P. Siddhanta, Consultant for the Appellant/Assessee Shri A. Roy, Authorized Representative for the Respondent/Revenue ORDER PER K. Anpazhakan : A Show Cause Notice dated 18.08.2011 was issued to M/s Leadstone Energy Ltd (herein after referred as the Appellant) demanding Central Excise duty of Rs.2,63,100/- along with interest and penalty equal to the duty under Section 11AC of the said Central Excise Act,1944, with respect to the removal of 1,11,808 Kgs of pure lead ingot as such during the period from September 2010 to March 2011. It was alleged that the Appellant has cleared the pure lead ingot on which CENVAT Credit was availed, but were sold it as such in the h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... finished products. A portion of the self-manufactured pure lead ingot has been captively consumed for manufacturing Lead alloys, Lead oxide Grey, Litharge, Lead oxide Red etc, called as downstream products. Rest of the pure lead ingot manufactured by them were cleared in domestic market on payment of Central Excise Duty. (c) They imported pure lead ingot on fixed price basis on payment of customs duty including countervailing duty and also procured pure lead ingot from indigenous market as input for use in the manufacturing of their downstream products. (d) They not only availed the Cenvat credit of countervailing duty paid on imported material but also availed credit on indigenous inputs and utilized such credit for payment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y was availed. There is no substance in the allegation that the Appellant avoided furnishing the particulars of consumption of pure lead ingot in ER-6 return. The Appellant clarified that item wise correlation of the consumption of pure lead ingot was not possible because the same was used for various downstream products and remained in various stage of production as in process material. So, it was technologically not possible to show the quantity of consumption of pure lead ingot in the manufacturing of individual downstream product. They had correctly determined the duty liability of the finished products manufactured and removed from their factory during the material period. They had rightly availed countervailing duty paid on imported p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t on which CENVAT Credit was availed, as such in the home market on payment of an amount less than the Cenavt credit availed. 12. We find that the Commissioner has dropped the proceedings initiated on this issue vide order dated 13.09.2011 and the Assistant Commissioner has also dropped the demand for the subsequent period vide order dated 10.01.2012. But, this order was overturned by the order of the Commissioner Appeals dated 20.07.2015. Accordingly, the appeals are filed by the Appellant as well as the department on the same issue. 13. We observe that the department has not adduced any evidence to substantiate the allegation that the Appellant has availed excess credit on the inputs and paid less duty at the time of clearance of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ailable on record to substantiate the allegation of the department regarding excess availment of Cenvat credit on the imported pure lead ingot. Hence we hold that the allegation of excess availment of credit by the department is not sustainable. 16. The Appellant stated that they have maintained all records with respect to receipt, disposal, consumption and inventory of inputs. So, the allegation of contravention of rule 9(5) of the Cenvat credit rules is unfounded. It was also alleged that the Appellant failed to produce any evidence to prove the consumption of the pure lead ingot procured by them in the manufacture of any final product. We observe that the department has not adduced any evidence for diversion of Cenvat credit availed i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
