TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 1018
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Per: S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 15.02.2017 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) has modified the impugned order and restricted the demand to Rs. 85,731/- along with interest and penalty of equal amount. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that during the audit of the records at their Gurgaon plant, it was observed that they ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s, 2002, if the process to which the goods are subjected, before being removed, did not amount to manufacture, the manufacturer is required to pay an amount equal to the CENVAT Credit taken under Rule 16(1) ibid., in as much as they had wrongly availed the CENVAT credit of Rs. 1,37,025/-, as indicated: Year 'Line Rejection' Amount Rate of Duty CEx Duty 2007-08 4,93,363 16.48% 81,306 2008-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he parties and perused the records. 5. The Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same is passed contrary to the facts and the law. He further submitted that out of the demand of Rs. 1,37,025/-, the appellants are liable to pay only Rs. 7,000/- which has been paid with interest. He further submitted that the documentary evidence before....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Vs. Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd. - 2016 (344) ELT 1026 (Tri.-Del.). 6. On the other hand the Learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 7. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of material on record, I find that the allegation of the appellant is that he has produced sufficient documentary evidence before both the authorities showing the clearance of good....