TMI Blog2009 (10) TMI 697X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... audited by the department from time to time, the extended period of limitation will not apply in respect of any unit. Such an interpretation would render the relevant legal provision regarding application of extended period of time totally redundant and hence cannot be accepted. The appellants did not maintain separate accounts of receipt, consumption and inventory of inputs which were used in the manufacture of dutiable final products as well as exempted goods removed to its sister concern without payment of duty. There is also no evidence on record to support the claim of the appellants that it had submitted particulars of removal of exempted goods to the department. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - E/667/2007/MAS - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne solution is cleared without payment of duty to its sister concern. The assessee has not maintained separate accounts of receipt, consumption and inventory of inputs that go into the manufacture of dutiable final products cleared by it and the exempted brine solution removed to its sister concern. Therefore, the provisions of Rule 6(3)(b) are attracted and the appellants are liable to pay 8%/10% of the sale price of brine solution which was removed to its sister concern. As regards the limitation, there is no evidence on record to support the claim of the appellants that it had submitted particulars of removal of brine solution without payment of duty to the department every year. 2. With the above observation, it was concluded by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng of a stay petition :- The ld. Counsel is also correct that prima facie the Cenvat credit cannot be disallowed on account of procedural or technical breaches relating to form or size of the duplicate invoices, when it is not denied that all other particulars mentioned in the duplicate invoices are correct and duty was paid by the Nashik unit and credit was availed only once by the Wada Unit. The contention of the Ld. JCDR that the conditions of Rule 3(4) are not satisfied, because no Cenvat credit was initially availed and that the inputs were not removed as such cannot be gone into at this stage, and has been left open to be considered at the time of the final hearing, because the demand relates to the Wada unit, which has received th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal were not refuted or rebutted in the order-in-original. It is well settled that a prima facie view taken in an interim order such as a stay order, cannot be taken as a binding precedent. Moreover, it was not only the visit of the audit party but also the presence of other additional factors in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola (supra) which appear to have persuaded the Tribunal Bench to take a particular prima facie view in the said case. The present case is different where such attendant additional factors are not present. Besides, it is well known that the department has a regular programme of audit, under which different units are audited according to the frequency laid down, for example, a bigger unit having more transactions and payin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
