TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1204X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e in this case are not sufficient or reasonable - demand withheld. CENVAT credit - construction service in connection with building of rest facility for labour within the factory - denial on the ground of nexus - Held that: - The expenses are part of the appellant s business activities and in similar situation, the credits on such input service have been allowed by the Tribunal - credit allowed. Clearance to other units - MS Plates - Held that: - the same was confirmed on a general statement of the officials of the appellant without any further verification or corroboration. We find in the absence of any corroboration for such clearance and considering the work sheet contains reference to 13 Kg. and 15 Kg., we find no legal basis to sustain that demand. Appeal disposed off - decided in favor of assessee. - Excise Appeals Nos.1862-1863/2011 and 1462-1463/2012 - Final Order No. 51846-51849/2017 - Dated:- 17-2-2017 - Hon ble Shri S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) And Hon ble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Shri B.L. Narsimhan, Advocate for the appellant Shri G.R. Singh, DR for the respondent ORDER Per B. Ravichandran These four appeals are dea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... small pieces or odd shapes. It is the submission of the ld. Counsel that when the inputs were put to use, till a final product of required design emerges, all the items in work yard are considered as work-in-progress. The conclusion of the lower authorities that there is unaccounted stock of 338.894 MT of WIP is on a wrong understanding of the process undertaken by the appellant. 5. Regarding shortage of 1093 MT of input M.S. Items, it is submitted that the heavy engineering items manufactured by them are transported using packing and support made by using same materials. These heavy structures were kept in place in the transport vehicles by providing M.S. Angles or Beam Support. The items were also internally supported against possible damage or mis-shaping during transport. Such packing and supporting items made of M.S. Angles, Beems, Sheets were not separately accounted for. These are part and parcel of finished goods at the time of clearance. The customers paid for the overall consignments and as such, they are not showing separately the quantity of such supporting packing materials. In case of export, they do mention gross and net weight separately. For export consignments, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... corroborative evidence and the demand is only on assumption based on some work sheet, which mentions 13or 15 kgs. There is no finding or evidence regarding as to which unit the goods were cleared and by which transport. Finally, the ld. Counsel contested the imposition of penalty on the main appellant as well as the Director, it is submitted that there is no specific finding regarding the involvement of Director in the irregularities alleged, with the personal knowledge in this regard. 10. Ld. AR reiterated the findings in the impugned orders. It is submitted that the stock taking was carried in the presence of representatives of the appellant. The Dy. Manager has admitted that some M.S. Plates have been cleared on returnable/non-returnable basis in 2007-08 and 2008-09 and there is no supporting invoice for the same. Regarding steel used for packing and forwarding, it is contended that the arguments of the appellant cannot be accepted as such packing is normal and no rolling margin can be given to that. Regarding difference due to sectional weight method, followed for clearance of goods, it is submitted that the actual weight of dispatch should have been kept by the appellant a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shortage alleged in the proceedings has also been dealt with in similar manner by the lower authorities. The impugned order records that there was no stock taking for four financial years. The shortage was affirmed by the impugned order by recording a summary conclusion that the appellant has not produced any concrete documentary evidence to support their claim that the shortage was on account of various reasons claimed by them. We note that the appellants have put-forth various logical and factual reasons to account for the alleged shortage in the M.S. items on which credit has been availed by them. First of all, they have said that they use some of the M.S. Items in packing and support for forwarding the heavy engineering items to the customers. 13. We have perused the various photographs of these items and the nature of support or packing provided by them. Admittedly, the M.S. Items used for such support and packing and supplied along with finished goods were out of duty paid inputs received by the appellants. No consideration was given to the claim made by the appellant by the lower authorities. We note that similar items were exported by the appellant for which separate gro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and is part and parcel of the factory as submitted by the appellant. The expenses are part of the appellant s business activities and in similar situation, the credits on such input service have been allowed by the Tribunal. Reference can be made to the decision of the Tribunal in Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. 2016 (41) STR 52 (T-Delhi), which relied on the earlier decisions of the Tribunal to allow cenvat credit on input service relating to the construction of dormitory within the premises of the factory. 15. Regarding the demand of ₹ 1,69,804/- on M.S. Plates cleared to other units of the appellant, we note that the same was confirmed on a general statement of the officials of the appellant without any further verification or corroboration. We find in the absence of any corroboration for such clearance and considering the work sheet contains reference to 13 Kg. and 15 Kg., we find no legal basis to sustain that demand. 16. The credit of ₹ 3,46,229/- availed on TMT bars for such civil construction was denied by the Original Authority. The same is not being contested by the appellant and they have paid the said amount. 16. Considering the above discussion and analysis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
