Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2015 (10) TMI 2345

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... then equivalent amount of CENVAT Credit is required to be reversed. By not doing so, the Appellant has contravened the provisions of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 and by virtue of the provisions contained in Rule 15(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004, such inputs are liable to confiscation. Accordingly, the order of confiscation made by the Adjudicating authority is proper and cannot be faulted with. - However redemption fine imposed by the Adjudicating authority is reduced to ₹ 1 lakh. In case, the entire quantity of inputs were used in the manufacture of finished goods or cleared as such on payment of duty, then the question of imposing penalty under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 15 of CENVAT Credit Rules will n .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . 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, valued at ₹ 30,71,202.00 were found to have been stored in godown situated outside the factory without obtaining necessary permission from the jurisdictional Central Excise Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner under CENVAT Credit Rules and without reve .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 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 Department under Rule 8 of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004. He made the Bench go through Para 60 of the Order-in-Original, dt.25.08.2011 and argued that no records were maintained by the Appellant at their godown situated outside the factory, whereas in their .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ission 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 Adjudicating authority in Para 60 of the Order-in-Original that no documents were prepared by the Appellant for clearances of inputs from their factory to the godown situated outside the factory. It is also observed from Para 60.2 of the Orde .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 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 ₹ 1 lakh (Rupees One Lakh only). 5. So far as denial of CENVAT Credit of ₹ 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 Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant could not produce documentary evidence as to how these goods were disposed of. This aspect is, therefore, required to be verified by the Adjudicating authority that the inputs stored out .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates