TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 442X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hey are not verifying documentary evidences which show that whether the waste and scrap received by them is re-rollable scrap. The appellant could not give satisfactory reply to the facts of the nature of the input on which they have taken the credit. Accordingly, as per the thickness of the material the same is not capable of being used in the manufacture of the final product, it is also fact that the partnership firm of the appellant admittedly paid the entire amount of Cenvat Credit and have not contested. Therefore, the penalty of ₹ 2 lakhs imposed on the appellant is on higher side and be reduced to ₹ 50,000/-. - Decided partly in favour of appellant - Appeal No. E/1606/2010 - Order No. A/86327/16/SMB - Dated:- 24-2-2016 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has reversed the entire Cenvat Credit initially under protest subsequently the protest was withdrawn. The appellant was imposed penalty of ₹ 2 lakhs under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules. Against the adjudication order, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) which was rejected by the impugned order, therefore the appellant is before me. 3. Shri Ashok Kumar Singh, the Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant in his statement not admitted regarding the wrong availment of credit. As per his statement he has not able to recollect regarding the nature of the material receipt. Ld. Counsel also submits that the partnership firm have without contesting the matter, reversed the entire Cenvat Cre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paid the amount of wrongly availed Cenvat Credit. The allegation was that the waste and scrap which is covered under the cenvatable invoices are not in the nature, which can be used for the purpose of rerolling in the manufacture of the final product. I find that the present appellant has shown his ignorance about the nature of the product. From the statement it is revealed that though he has not admitted regarding the nature of the goods but when the question was put up before him regarding the statements of various dealers. He has admitted that they are not verifying documentary evidences which show that whether the waste and scrap received by them is re-rollable scrap. The appellant could not give satisfactory reply to the facts of the n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
