9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2345X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er appeals are filed by Shri Narendra Surana, M.D., Shri Prakash Sahu, Assistant Manager-cum-Authorised Signatory and Shri Manoj Jain, Commercial Head & Company Secretary-cum-Authorised Signatory of the main Appellant with respect to penalties imposed upon them. 2. Shri Rahul Gajera (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the Appellants submitted that the case is with respect to storage of duty paid inputs by the main Appellant in a godown situated away from the factory. That the officers of Central Excise visited the factory premises of the Appellant on 03.02.2010/04.02.2010 and conducted verification of the stock lying in the factory including stock lying in the nearby premises outside the declared godown. That 52,075.00 kgs of various inputs, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stored the goods in the godown situated outside the factory. That the entire inputs after provisional release were used in the manufacture of finished goods, therefore, no violation of CENVAT Credit Rules has been made by the Appellant and CENVAT Credit disallowed and penalties imposed are required to be set aside. He relied upon the case law of Sanchit Polymers Vs CCE & C, Daman [2009 (241) ELT 240 (Tri-Ahmd)] to argue that under similar circumstances, it has been held that confiscation of inputs was not justified and penalties imposed were set aside. 3. Shri L. Patra, (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that it is not disputed by the Appellants that the inputs were cleared without getting necessary permission from the Departme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ters dt.18.07.2007 and 01.04.2008 for granting permission under Rule 8 of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004. It is not disputed by the Appellant that inputs on which CENVAT Credit was taken, were removed from the factory premises without necessary permission required under Rule 8 of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004. It is also observed from the case records and arguments made by either sides that delivery of the letter written by the Appellant has been questioned by the Department. Further, it is observed from the photocopy of the letter dt.18.07.2007 that main Appellant gave an undertaking that they will be maintaining proper records both in the factory as well as at the place of storage of inputs outside the factory. It has been clearly brought out by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Guarantee executed by the Appellant at the time of provisional release of the seized inputs. Total CENVAT Credit on the goods stored outside the factory premises has been calculated to Rs. 4,44,626.00. Keeping in mind the CENVAT Credit involved in the proceedings, it is observed that the redemption fine imposed is excessive. In the interest of justice, redemption fine imposed by the Adjudicating authority is reduced to Rs. 1 lakh (Rupees One Lakh only). 5. So far as denial of CENVAT Credit of Rs. 4,44,626.00, alongwith interest and equivalent amount of penalty is concerned, it is the case of the Appellants that seized inputs have been used in the manufacture of the finished goods further cleared on payment of duty. However, learned Advocat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
