TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (4) TMI 381
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the credit is required to be reversed only in case where the CENVAT Credit in respect of inputs has been taken as written off and shown in the Books of Account, but if the inputs were subsequently used in the manufacture then the credit is admissible. She submits that in the present case though certain quantity of inputs has been written off as shown in the Books of Account but the same was used in the manufacture of final products as writing of input is not due to non-availability of input but only due to accounting error. There is no evidence of removal as the input was received and used in the factory of the appellant. Therefore, the credit is admissible. She further submits that in both the show-cause notices except one month, entire ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ome into effect from 11.5.2007 vide Notification No. 26/2007-CE (NT) dated 11.5.2007. Therefore, for the past period, the demand is not sustainable. She has relied upon the following judgments: - (a) Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs. CCE 2004 (173) ELT 382 (Tri-Del) (b) Tata Motors Ltd. vide Final Order No. A/93059/16/SMB dated 13.6.2016 (c) Tata Motors Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pune-I 2016-TIOL-1027-CESTAT-MUM (d) Lear Automotive India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Nashik 2012 (286) ELT 558 (Tri-Mum). 3. Shri N.N. Prabhudesai, learned Supdt. (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He further submits that even before insertion of sub-rule (5B) in Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules, this Tribunal has taken the decision that q....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wn case decided the issue against them and according to the said decision, the appellant is required to reverse the credit on the written off quantity. Therefore, not only after insertion of sub-rule (5B) but also before the insertion of sub-rule (5B), the decision of this Tribunal will prevail. 4.1 As regards the learned Counsel's submissions that the said decision stand distinguished for the reason that the judgment of Greaves Cotton Ltd. (supra), which was relied upon by this Tribunal and on that basis, judgment of Maruti Udyog Ltd. (supra) was distinguished, but Maruti Udyog's decision given by this Tribunal was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the Tribunal's decision in their own case is not a good law. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s have given their opinion that, the procedure of physical verification of the inventories followed by the management as reasonable and adequate in relation to the size of the company and the nature of the business, and that the valuation of the inventories is fair and proper in accordance with the generally accepted accounting principles. Thus from the stock verification as also from the reports of auditors, it was evident that certain inputs which were found short during the stock verification were written off from the books of accounts and the values of such shortages of inputs are shown in trial balance sheet and profit and loss account only after compilation. Despite that the assessee did not reverse the Cenvat credit taken on such inp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ioner on the appellant company under Sec. 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is justified inasmuch as the appellant company has evaded the payment of appropriate amount of central excise duty by suppression of relevant facts as already mentioned herein above. 31. The third and last issue for consideration is whether extended period is invocable for the demand of Cenvat credit taken in respect of inputs found short but ultimately written off in the books of accounts. On merits, both the Members have held that the credit is required to be reversed. The difference is only with respect to invocability of extended period of time. The appellant conducts physical stock taking annually before the statutory auditors and thereafter adjustment of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tted by the Excise Executive of the appellant firm in his statement dated 11-2-2004. This non-compliance to the instructions and withholding of information from the department tantamounts to suppression of facts. In a tax regime which places high reliance on voluntary compliance, the onus on the part of the assessee is quite high and failure to comply with the law can not be taken lightly. Therefore, I am of the view that the extended period of time has been correctly invoked to demand ineligible Cenvat credit taken in respect of inputs found short and which have been written off in the books of accounts." I am therefore of the view that the above decision is still prevailing and accordingly, the present appeals do not survive. 4.2 As reg....