TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 471X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ip is only 0.05% which is negligible in this trade. Further there may differences in weightment on various balances. In these circumstances, I do agree with the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, I upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on this issue. Court has verified the invoices produced by the assessees which were also produced before the lower authorities. These invoices shows that these Runners and Raisers are excisable goods which emerges during the process of manufacturing of their final product i.e. M.S. Ingots. Therefore, they are not liable to pay duty as they have raised Central Excise invoices in their own name as the assessee is entitled for the benefit of Notification 67/1995 and is not required to pay duty thereon. In contrary to that the Revenue has failed to produce any evidence that these Runners and Raisers have been cleared without payment of duty outside their factory. As there is an evidence produced by the assessee that the central excise invoices were issued in their own name and have been captively consumed for manufacturing of final product. In these circumstance, I set aside the impugned order quo demand of ₹ 30,95,597/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ideration. After completion of the investigation the following discrepancies were pointed out:- (a) There was a shortage of input namely silicone manganese. For that shortage a demand of ₹ 2516/- was confirmed. (b) The assessee has removed excess quantity of finished goods. The amount shown in the invoice and the delivery challan are different. For that, demand of ₹ 20,283/- was required to be confirmed. (c) During the manufacturing of M.S. ingots some Runners and Raisers were emerges which were captively consumed by the assessee by re-melting of the same. The assessee issued Central Excise invoices. Therefore, the Revenue was of the view that these runners and raisers have been cleared clandestinely hence a amount of ₹ 30,95,597/- has been abated by the assessee. (d) After 1.4.2000 when the Compounded Levy Scheme was withdrawn, the assessee cleared M.S. Ingots to the tune of 87.86 M.T., without payment of duty therefore, duty of ₹ 1,61,100/- is payable by the assessee. (e) CENVAT credit involved in less quantity of inputs received and comparison of quantity mentioned in Form IV register vis-`-vis Purchase Ledger is not matching. Therefore, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s further submitted that prior to 01.04.2000 the assessee was operating under Compounded Levy Scheme for payment of duty. The goods namely M.S. Ingots manufactured during the period, the assessee did not include the quantity of 87.86 MT in their closing stock but the assessee has able to bring the relevant records before the Commissioner (Appeals) for verification that when the Compounded Levy Scheme is applicable, has the assessee paid duty on these goods or not. The Commissioner (Appeals) has verified the fact that the assessee has paid duty thereon. Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly set aside the demand of duty along with penalty. 4.5 For variance of CENVAT credit in Form IV Register and purchase ledger, it is submitted that the assessee produced reconciliation statement duly supported by purchase ledger. When the appellants had given reconciliation statement, the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the same saying that the reconciliation statement was not signed by any authority therefore it will not be taken into consideration as a evidence. In the circumstance, he sought the matter can be remanded back to the adjudicating authority for a limited purpose to comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the rules with intent to evade payment of duty. Therefore, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly dropped the penalty. Accordingly, the order quo dropping the penalty on shortage of silicon manganese is upheld. 7.2 With regard to the demand for excess quantity of finished goods found on the basis of weighment slips that the assessee has cleared excess quantity than the quantity shown in the invoices/delivery challans. I find that the difference of weighment slip is only 0.05% which is negligible in this trade. Further there may differences in weightment on various balances. In these circumstances, I do agree with the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, I upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on this issue. 7.3 Further, there is a demand of ₹ 30,95,597/- from the assessee on the basis of Tax Audit Report as Form 3CD shows sale of Runners and Raisers alleging that the same has been cleared clandestinely without payment of duty. I have verified the invoices produced by the assessees which were also produced before the lower authorities. These invoices shows that these Runners and Raisers are excisable goods which emerges during the process o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
