TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 821X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in the contentions of the learned counsel that the adjudicating authority has not taken full cognizance of the submissions and documents produced by them. In the circumstances, we are of the considered Opinion that the matter requires to be considered de novo by original authority after giving an opportunity to the appellant to submit all documents and materials in their defence, which should be properly analysed and correlated to arrive at well reasoned findings with regard to the veracity or otherwise of the contentions of the appellant. All the issues are kept open - Appeal allowed - matter remanded. - Appeal No. E/25818/2013 - ORDER NO.A/30783/2016 - Dated:- 26-8-2016 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S., Member(Judicial) And Shri Madhu Moha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pose of testing is available, that stock statements and Work-in-Progress statements are not at all tallying with the R G 1 Register; that they have not maintained proper records to show inventory of the goods manufactured as envisaged in Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 to ascertain production, clearances on a particular date and under Rule 9(5) of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 for receipt, disposal, consumption and inventory of the inputs and capital goods. 1 .3 Show Cause Notice dated 20-01-2012 was issued to appellants, inter alia, alleging (i) non-payment of duty to the tune of ₹ 94,57,417/- on account of clandestine removals, (ii) short payment of duty to the tune of ₹ 14,98,267/- on account of non inclusion of p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e values are available in the related purchase orders. Mis-declaring the installation material as inputs and wrongly availing CENVAT Credit. Clearance of capita] goods without reversing the CENVAT Credit availed as envisaged under Rule 4(5) (a) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Fabrication of documents. 1.4. After due process of adjudication, adjudicating authority, vide impugned order dt. 30.11.2012, confirmed the proposals in the show-cause notice. Hence, this appeal. 2.1. During the hearing, learned counsel Shri G. Natarajan appearing for the appellant countering the allegations submitted the following in respect of each demand:- a. Alleged removals without payment of duty under the cover of letters, etc. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reight and Insurance cannot be added in the assessable value. c. Demand of duty on NIL Value Invoices Reference is invited to Page 350 of Volume II and Page 488 of Volume III of the documents submitted in adjudication. Some battery back up, which are under 4.1b of PO are cleared on payment of duty. Same Battery back are also part of Maintenance spare 4.4, which has not been cleared along with the maintenance spare. Subsequently cleared without duty along with clearance of similar battery back ups with payment of duty. d. Denial of CENVAT Credit i) These are forming part of the BOQ of supplies, on which ED is being paid. So credit is entitled. ii) Even if the goods are meant for installation and commissioning, credit is en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f disputed documents To whom so ever it may concern and Delivery Note (waybill) . Learned counsel further submitted that Commissioner also ought to have noticed that the demand of the duty of ₹ 14,98,67/- as being duty payable on the assumed apportioned values of packing charges is incorrect and improper. As per the Purchase Order BSNL has contracted to pay 0.5% on the aggregate on duty values as extra amount. The details of the this amount figures in Annexure-B in a different nomenclature as 'Freight, Forwarding, Packaging and Inland Charges'. It is submitted that it is the comprehension of BSNL that the appellants should be reimbursed packing charges also, and in any case a total charge that can claimed cannot be more tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rong CENVAT Credit availment, since inputs were used for the installation and erection purposes, they submit that the dispatched goods were used in the manufacture and therefore the proposal to recover is irregular. 2.5 The learned counsel further submitted that they had submitted all records and documents during the adjudication process to substantiate their contention, however, the same have not been taken cognizance of by the adjudicating authority and impugned order has been passed by him without any analysis or weighing the contention made by them and has merely confirmed the allegations in the show-cause notice without giving any justification grounds or proper reasoning. 3. On behalf of the Department, learned AR reiterated the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
