9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 491X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This Appeal has been filed by the Revenue against Order-in-Appeal No.10/HAL/07 dated 20.02.2007 passed by the Commissioner(Appeal-I) of Central Excise, Kolkata as First Appellate Authority. Under this Order-in-Appeal dated 20.02.2007 Order-in-Original dated 27.09.2006 passed by the Adjudicating Authority has been set aside wherein a demand of Rs. 10,13,102/- was confirmed against the Respondent he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inished goods to the tune of 694.812 MT of the finished goods during the period 01.02.2001 to 07.02.2001 involving Central Excise duty of Rs. 10,13,102/-. It was strongly argued by the Ld.AR that stock-taking report prepared in the presence of the Appellant has not been agitated by the Respondent. It was his case that Order-in-Appeal passed by the First Appellate Authority is thus not correct and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial statements given have not been retracted by the Respondent. At the same time there was a shortage of raw materials on which CENVAT Credit of Rs. 1,03,104/- has been proposed to be recovered. Bench is of the considered opinion that Revenue cannot deny the CENVAT Credit and simultaneously confirm duty liability on the finished goods. The shortage of raw materials on which CENVAT Credit of Rs. 1, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded to the Appellant if the entire duty amount of Rs. 10,13,102/-, along with interest and reduced 25% penalty is paid within one month from the date of receipt of this order. 5. So far as denial of credit of Rs. 1,03,104/- is concerned, the demand is set aside and accordingly equivalent penalty imposed is also set aside. 6. Appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed to the extent indicated hereinab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
