TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 881X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oods. It is the submission of the ld. Advocate for the Applicant that the inputs were not removed from the factory and were lying inside the factory premises even if the same were written off from their books of accounts. Therefore, no cenvat credit is required to be reversed. It is the case of the Department that the applicant could not justify through evidences that even after writing off the in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appearing for the Applicant, has submitted that there is an overlapping of demand. He submits that another show-cause notice dated 4.5.2007 was issued seeking recovery of erroneously availed cenvat credit on inputs more or less for the same period, which has been adjudicated by the authorities and the demand also had been confirmed. He submits that the present demand relates to recovery of cenvat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld not able to substantiate their claim on the aspect of non-removal of inputs written off from the stock, accordingly, the demand is sustainable. 4. Heard both sides and perused the records. I find that that the demand has been confirmed on the ground that even though the credit had been availed on the inputs, but the same were not used in or in relation to the manufacture of finished goods. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... over-lapping of demand as claimed by the ld.Advocate and not accepted in the order. In the result, to meet the ends of justice, the Applicant is directed to deposit 25% of ₹ 10.00 lakhs within a period of four weeks from today and report compliance on 25.07.2014. On deposit of the said amount, the balance dues adjudged would stand waived and its recovery stayed during pendency of the appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
