Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2017 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (11) TMI 11 - AT - Central ExciseClandestine removal - inputs like CRGO steel - the revenue authorities were of the view that there was a excess consumption of raw materials like CRGO sheets, copper etc. and the same was intentionally done so, as to avail unintended cenvat credit on the inputs - whether the said VEL and VTSL are required to reverse the cenvat credit, allegedly having consumed inputs in excess and unrecorded and held to have been removed clandestinely or otherwise? Held that: - The provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 more specifically rule 3 clearly indicates that cenvat credit of the duty paid on inputs and input services can be availed by appellant immediately and utilised for discharge of duty on the finished products. Various procedures are laid down in the said Cenvat Credit Rules. In our considered view, if it is not the case of Revenue that appellant has only received the documents and availed credit but did not receive the inputs, nor there are any findings that documents of receipt of inputs are ferged etc. in the absence of any such evidence it has to be held that quantum of inputs as per duty paying documents are received. There is nothing on record to show that the said Power Corporations will reject the transformers in which, if the weight transformer exceeds the wieght in technical specification. It is also surprising that in this case Revenue authorities have conspicuously refrained from recording any statement of the responsible Officers of APEPDCL and APCPDCL, which may have brought on record that excess input usage was not in their knowledge for drawing an inference against the appellant. In our view, there being absence of evidence toindicate that consumption of material was with intent to remove the same or divert the same, we have to hold that Order-in-Original fails and falls miserably. Penalties on the individuals - Held that: - since we have held that the entire demand falls on merits itself, the Revenue appeals also stands rejected. Penalty on VEL & VTSL - Held that: - the appellant has not been able to prove with concrete evidence to come to a conclusion as to the said capital goods were in fact installed in their own unit or otherwise. In the absence of any such evidence, we hold that the demand of ₹ 7,01,044/- is correct, alongwith interest and penalty imposed is also correct. Non confiscation of raw materials and semi finished goods which were found unaccounted - Held that: - the adjudicating authority has come to a conclusion that non accountal was not due to any mens rea for clandestine removal of goods. To come to such a conclusion adjudicating authority has correctly relied upon the factual matrix of the case considering that there were no antecedents - appeal of Revenue rejected. Appeal allowed in part.
|