TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1094X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d used for manufacture in their factory - this demand of cenvat credit of ₹ 41,40,880/- on account of non-receipt of the above raw material(6,70,000 Kgs) in their factory (out of total demand of Cenvat credit of ₹ 1,05,66,429/-) along with interest and imposition of corresponding equivalent penalty is hereby sustained. In case of remaining demand of ₹ 61,79,502/-, assessee claims that the repetition of invoices has led to duplication of demands - Held that: - the matter deserves to be remanded to the Original adjudicating authority, who shall examine the same - matter on remand. Appeal allowed by way of remand. - E/2382, 2383, 2252/2008-Ex[DB] - FINAL ORDER NO. 50870-50872_/2017-Ex(DB) - Dated:- 15-2-2017 - Mr. (D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TNL etc. ii) The present proceedings are emanating from the search conducted by DGCEI at head office of the Appellant on 27.10.2004. Besides search at Appellant s Head Office, search was also conducted on the same day at another group company namely Resham Petrotech Ltd, who is also manufacturing the same product namely Polythylene Sheathing Compound. It is relevant to note that both the companies had common head office at Senior Tower, 2nd floor, 160-A, Gautam Nagar, New Delhi. iii) Post search on 27.10.2004, search was conducted at factory of the Appellant on 21.12.2004 and thereafter on a transporter namely M/s. Bombay Golden on 12.07.2005. The Appellant has manufacturing plant at Malanpur, Madhya Pradesh. Another company Resham Pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the excise authorities linked the quantity recorded in hand written documents with random invoices of raw material suppliers. Thus, there has been repetition of certain quantity and invoices thus credit to the tune of ₹ 21,46,492/- ₹ 42,79,057/- has been denied against a single quantity and single invoice. iii. Due to this overlapping Cenvat credit to the tune of ₹ 21,46,492/- and 42, 79,057/- has erroneously been demanded. This aspect was raised before the Commissioner which has been declined on the basis The manufacturer invoice has been taken as the bases and it makes no or little difference, if it is used once or more than once . iv. Therefore, there is a complete error on the part of the Commissioner to den ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... NVAT credit. It is the said quantity of raw material, which was sold by Reshman Petrotech Ltd, enroute to its plant at Silvasa and reversed the credit. This aspect has been confirmed by the Transporter namely Shri Harish Arora during his statement recorded on 22.08.2005. The Commissioner has completely ignored the said aspect and has quantified the demand based on scribbling mentioned on rough pages. vii. Further, demand of Cenvat Credit of ₹ 61,79,502/- pertaining to 905.58 MT is related to certain documents marked as Annexure A-12, A-13, A-15 and A-24 (Page 101 to 108 of PB), credit on the quantity noted therein has been denied based on statements of Shri Rohit Asopa and Shri Vivek Mishra. Both Shri Rohit Asopa and Shri Vivek Mis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6 (333) E.L.T. 483. d. P J Automatics Vs. CCE, Delhi-III reported at 2016 (334) E.L.T. 675 e. Davinder Sadhu Impex Ltd. Vs. CCE, Ludhiana reported at 2016(337) E.L.T. 99. f. Raipur Forging Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raipur reported at 2016 (335) E.L.T. 297 g. HSR Re-Rolling Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raipur reported at 2016 (335) E.L.T. 111. 5. The ld. AR for the Revenue reiterates the findings given in the impugned order. 6. After careful consideration of the facts of the case, the submissions of both the sides and the case laws cited it appears that Revenue s case of demand of Cenvat credit is mainly based on the claim that assessee sold the raw material on which they had taken Cenvat credit. This finding of Revenue is based mainly on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that their has been repetition of certain quantity and the invoices leading to over-lapping of certain cenvat credit amounts, and therefore these are certain errors in the confirmation of demand. During the hearing, the ld. Advocate showed us certain entries in the Annexure-A2 to the Show Cause Notice wherein certain invoices were mentioned repeatedly like invoice no. 67290, 40925 and so on. The ld. Advocates argument is that this repetition of invoices has led to duplication of demands; therefore, in case of remaining demand of ₹ 61,79,502/-, the matter deserves to be remanded to the Original adjudicating authority, who shall examine the same along with the issue of corresponding penalties to be imposed in this regard. The equivalen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
