9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 799X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s issued as per RG 23A part I register was 1,16,69,281.17 Kgs while as per mixer Log Book, PVC resin consumed is 1,08,17,386.33 Kgs. Thus there was a difference of 8,51,892.84 Kgs in the PVC resin shown was issued and consumed. A demand notice was issued in respect of Modvat credit on the said quantity of PVC Resin as either it was removed or not received at all. The demand was confirmed by the Commissioner vide Order, dated 28-2-2002. Appellant filed appeal before this Tribunal, wherein additional document viz. C.A. certificate was produced. Tribunal remanded the matter to re-examine various claims made by the appellant. In pursuant to the same, impugned order, dated 25-4-2004 has been passed. Before passing the order, worksheets were prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... indings of adjudicating authority and states that in the absence of Mixer Log Book for the relevant period and details of actual buffer stock, benefit cannot be extended. 5. We have considered the submissions of both sides. On the first issue, we note that there is no dispute that factory was under production during the two spells for which Mixer Log Books are not available. In such a situation department cannot deny benefit of Modvat credit on PVC resin used in the production. Since exact quantity is not known, in our view following procedure can be adopted in the instant case to estimate the reasonable quantity of Inputs used viz. (a) Quantity of final product produced and PVC Resin consumed during 1-12-1996 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Input-Output Norm is of no consequence in present case as here dispute is between raw material issued and consumed and not with reference to quantity of final product produced vs. input used. 8. We therefore direct the adjudicating authority to recompute the difference in quantity keeping in view above and thereafter compute the demand. We also note that department has not produced any evidence about non-receipt of inputs or diversion of inputs but only has stated that there are only two possibilities and the matter pertains to 1994-1999. Appellant has also not been able to give any satisfactory explanation, particularly, in view of the nature of product as also the fact sweepage/spillage waste, lumps, etc., were all already being ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
