9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (2) TMI 619X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tured both dutiable as well as exempted product and in the process of manufacture of the same, they used common inputs/packing materials without maintaining separate inventory/records as required under Rule 57C and Rule 57CC of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. Consequently, a demand was issued to them on 26.3.03 for recovery of modvat credit of Rs.1,48,630/- wrongly availed by them during the period 1998-1999 to 2001-2002 under Rule 57 (1) (ii) of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. The said demand was confirmed and equivalent amount of penalty was imposed by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise vide his order dated 28.09.2004. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred an appeal before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... considered on the ground that the amount of Rs.41,482.55 against 13 invoices were already considered at the time of issuing impugned notice and another amount of Rs.9873.85 was the difference between the duty amount of Rs.31,695.85 against balance 13 Nos. of Invoices and the input credit on PVC films showed in the demand notice as Rs.21,822.00. It is his submission that the aforesaid amount was not considered solely on the ground that the benefits were already extended in the impugned notice. However, the entire show-cause notice is calculated on pro rata basis and not on actual basis. The contention is that the benefits that were extended to them in the said notice as now contended by the Department was on pro rata basis. It is his submis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng an affidavit, the ld. A.R. has submitted that he has no objection for admitting these evidences under Rule 23 of CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982. The ld. A.R. himself offered to verify the said documents and after verification along with other records produced by the appellants, namely, original RG 23A Part I Register and respective Invoices, submitted that in the respective invoices, there had been no endorsement about the availment of credit indicating the RG 23A Part II Entry No. nor any defacement of the original invoices by the respective Range Superintendent as was required at the relevant material time, which indicate no credit had been availed against all these input invoices. The ld. A. R. fairly agreed that on the basis of these e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nation of the ld.A.R. for the Department, it can safely be concluded that the appellants did not avail modvat credit against 26 Nos. of Invoices involving credit of Rs.88,000.33 and also 17 Nos. of Invoices involving credit of Rs.99,825/-. The entire amount of cenvat credit not availed by them during the said period, works out at Rs.1,87,825/-, which clearly covers the amount of cenvat credit alleged to have been wrongly availed on the common inputs/packing materials used in or in relation to the manufacture of dutiable as well as exempted products. In these circumstances, I find that the appellants had not availed cenvat credit of Rs.1,48,630/- on the input packing materials that had gone into the manufacture of exempted products. Accordin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
