9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 55X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evant invoices placed on record, recorded the findings that even though the appellant have claimed that these are transport charges and not handling charges, however, supporting transport receipt has not been produced. Since no evidence has been produced by the appellant before the lower authorities nor before this Tribunal, thus, duty of Rs. 24,586/- payable on packaging charges is confirmed. Regarding the CENVAT Credit of Rs. 44,469/- on rejected/returned goods - appellant failed to produce the evidences ie. proper account of receipt and disposal of the same - HELD THAT:- The appellant had not enclosed any evidences in this regard, thus it is clear that they had not maintained proper records of receipt goods, processes carried out an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wed to that extent. - DR. D. M. MISRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MRS. R. BHAGYA DEVI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Present for the Appellant: None Present for the Respondent: Sh. H. Jayathirtha, A.R. ORDER None present for the appellant. Heard the ld. A.R. 2. This appeal is filed against Order-in-Appeal No. 24/2010 dated 15.01.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-II), Bangalore. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the appellant are engaged in manufacture of Aluminum Foils falling under Chapter Heading 76071995 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the course of audit, it was noticed that the appellant had not paid duty on packaging charges amounting to Rs. 24,586/-; not maintained recor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aging charges being part of the value but no duty was paid claiming it as freight charges. Analyzing the evidences, the adjudicating authority after scrutiny of the relevant invoices placed on record, recorded the findings that even though the appellant have claimed that these are transport charges and not handling charges, however, supporting transport receipt has not been produced. Since no evidence has been produced by the appellant before the lower authorities nor before this Tribunal, thus, duty of Rs. 24,586/- payable on packaging charges is confirmed. 7. Regarding the CENVAT Credit of Rs. 44,469/- on rejected/returned goods, demand was confirmed as the appellant failed to produce the evidences ie. proper account of receipt and dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 13 (294) ELT 686 (Bom.) observed as follow: 10 . Apart from the above, in the present case, the assessment on decoiled HR/CR coils cleared from the factory of the assessee on payment of duty has neither been reversed nor it is held that the assessee is entitled to refund of duty paid at the time of clearing the decoiled HR/CR coils. In these circumstances, the CESTAT following its decision in the case of Ashok Enterprises - 2008 (221) E.L.T. 586 (T), Super Forgings - 2007 (217) E.L.T. 559 (T), S.A.I.L. - 2007 (220) E.L.T. 520 (T) = 2009 (15) S.T.R. 640 (Tribunal), M.P. Telelinks Limited - 2004 (178) E.L.T. 167 (T) and a decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of CCE v. Creative Enterprises reported in 2009 (235) E.L.T. 785 (Guj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
