TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 367X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R is applicable. Further, the SION norms are not applicable in the facts and circumstances - It is not the case of the Revenue that the appellants have not maintained proper records of receipt of inputs and its utilization. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeal No. 53868 of 2018 (SM) - FINAL ORDER NO. 51302 of 2019 - Dated:- 9-10-2019 - MR. ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri Rajesh Chibber, Advocate for the appellants. Shri K. Poddar, Authorised Representative for the respondent/Department ORDER The appellant Canadian Speciality Vinyls is engaged in the manufacture of PVC films, sheets and coated textiles falling under Chapter 3920 an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bmitted ER-1s manually in the old format in the Range office on 11.11.2014. The total value of goods cleared by them for the concerned ten months (Jan. 14 to Oct. 14) added up to ₹ 5,03,07,016/-, total duty amounting to ₹ 60,85,685/- (as per above mentioned ER-1s) inclusive of duty on scrap. As per the ER-1s, the party had manufactured and cleared 425802.77 MT of the final products i.e. PVC films and sheetings. Only ₹ 30,000/- was paid by PLA, vide challan No. 51353 dated 31.03.2014,and rest of the duty was paid by them by way of utilisation of cenvat credit, appeared to be too high indicating that the party had inputs lying in balance at the time of closure of the unit. 4. The Range Superintendent asked for f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; 4,88,002/- whereas in the last ER-I for October, 2014, the cenvat credit balance has been shown at ₹ 7,43,606/- which appeared to be incorrect. Further, the appellant had deposited an amount of ₹ 30,000/- by challan dated 30.03.3014 and utilised an amount of ₹ 27,195/- (out of the same PLA) towards payment of duty, leaving balance of ₹ 2,805/-from the total credit duty liability). It further appeared to Revenue that under the provisions of Rule 3(5) of CCR, 2004, inputs have to be removed under cover of an invoice. It further appeared that the appellants have contravened the provisions of Rule 3 (5), and thus, an amount of ₹ 13,40,726/- is liable to be recovered under Rule 14 15 of CCR read with Section 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Rule 3(5) applies or provides for reversal of duty on inputs, which are removed as such. Thus, I hold that the show cause notice is mis-conceived as the same is issued alleging that Rule 3(5) of CCR is applicable. Further, I find that SION norms are not applicable in the facts and circumstances. It is not the case of the Revenue that the appellants have not maintained proper records of receipt of inputs and its utilization. Under the provisions of Rule 11 of CCR, (which is not invoked in the show cause notice), the assessee is required to reverse the cenvat credit lying unutilized in its books of accounts, on the date, its final product/output become exempt. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
