Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2015 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (2) TMI 466 - CESTAT MUMBAIDenial of CENVAT Credit - Shortage of raw material - Marginal difference noticed - Held that:- In this case although at the time of annual stock taking the respondents found shortage of raw materials and taken the same stocks in the account books. But there is no allegation of diversion of inputs which were found short at the time of annual stock taking. Further as per the Circular No. 367/87/1997 dated 19.12.1997 the CBEC, the issue was examined and was explained that for measurement of the goods for variation of temperatures and densities. From the facts of the case it is not coming out whether the respondent has done adjustment as per the Circular dated 19.1.1997 of the CBEC but it is submitted by the learned counsel that these are on actual basis. - variance in measurement is marginal. Impugned period is 2000-01 and the Show Cause Notice came to be issued in October 2003 by invoking the extended period of limitation. In these circumstances, the case law relies upon by the learned A.R. in the case of Philips Carbon Black Ltd vs CCE reported in [2013 (3) TMI 140 - CESTAT KOLKATA] also gives the benefit of limitation to the respondent. Credit admissibility dependent on various factors to see whether entire consignment received in factory without diversion and tolerance for hygroscopic, volatile and such other cargo to be allowed as per industry norms excluding unreasonable or exorbitant claims. It was also held that marginal variation due to weighment by different machines to be ignored if within tolerable limits. In these circumstances I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. - Following decision of CCE vs Bhuwalka Steel Industries Ltd [2009 (11) TMI 177 - CESTAT, CHENNAI [LB]] - Decided against Revenue.
|