TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1001X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... parated by stroke - It is not correct to allege that the descriptions are not matching when there is no description based on words to explain the nature of goods in the duty paid document. Item code is the description and as explained the codes are not varied substantially except for making it more specific in the recipient s end for further accounting and monitoring - there is no legal or factual basis for denial of credits. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/112/2010 - Final Order No. 42941/2017 - Dated:- 16-11-2017 - Smt. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member ( Judicial ) And Shri B. Ravichandran, Member ( Technical ) Shri Joseph Prabakar, Advocate for the Appellant Ms. P. Hemavathy, Commissioner (AR) for the Respon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fense. The original authority adjudicated the case resulted in the impugned order. He held that the appellants are not eligible for Cenvat credit of ₹ 17,98,97,603/- and ordered recovery of the same. He also imposed equal amount of penalty on the appellant under Rule 15 (2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. He ordered that the seized goods were liable for confiscation. Since the same were released provisionally on bond, he imposed a penalty of ₹ 17,91,519/- under Rule 15 (1) of the CCR, 04. 3. The Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted on the following lines:- a) The SCN which proposed a denial of Cenvat credit raised many grounds in support of the allega ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd the method of accounting, it is submitted that there is no ground to allege that the duty paid goods cleared by SLW are not the one received and used by AEI unit. e) Denial of such substantial credit cannot be made only on inference and suspicion without giving due regard to the computerized accounting system followed by the appellant. f) Further, there is no allegation or evidence either with reference to the actual description of the impugned gods cleared from SLW to a place other than AEI nor the source of such goods which were actually used by AEI from other than SLW. In other words, there is no allegation at all that AEI has substituted the duty paid items of SLW with other products on which no duty was paid. In the absenc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the adjudicating authority is the mismatch of coding and description between the supplier s document and the records maintained by the receiver. The finding of the original authority on this issue is as below:- 15. I therefore find that the documents, on the basis of which AEI Works were availing credit contain the description which do not match with the description of inputs contained in the stock account of AEI Works. From the facts on record, there is a preponderance of probability that the corrections carried out in the original invoices have been done by hand only with the intent to match the item code in order to create a false impression that the same inputs had been received into AEI. There also emerges in disputable and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ight of the above finding, we have perused various documents submitted by the appellants. We have seen illustratively certain duty paid invoices of SLW for the impugned goods. We note that there is no overwriting or manipulation of the invoices as inferred in the original order. In fact, there is no description of the goods in the invoices and only code numbers are mentioned and admittedly the multiple grades of inputs were shown separated by stroke. This multiplication of grades were restricted to a specific grade at the receiving end based on the actual nature of the input and accordingly the code is entered for further accounting. This is apparently discernable from the table mentioned at para-12 of the impugned order. It is not correct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
