TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 202X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e net duty liability to be demanded from the appellant. CENVAT credit - receipts of MS scrap from M/s. Salem Automec, a dealer of BHEL - Held that: - to benefit from the facility, appellant will necessarily have to produce the dealers invoice with proper endorsement from M/s. Salem Automec. This definitely has not been done. The appellants are falling back on the ledger account of the said Salem Automec, which by any stretch of imagination cannot take the place of the document evidencing payment of duty - credit not allowed. Sale of scrap as reflected in their balance sheet - Held that: - it appears that the appellant did not produce any evidence in support of their claim before the lower appellate authority. However, before this for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rejected the appeal. Hence this appeal. 2. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, ld. counsel Ms. Minchu Mariam Punnose made oral and written submissions which can be broadly summarized as follows:- 2.1 It is submitted that in the case of ingots cleared to M/s. Balaji Steel Industry, Trichy and M/s. Insha Steel Rolling Mills, Coimbatore, the officers have collected the central excise duty from them and those buyers had subsequently collected the same from them. Hence, they need not pay the duty again for the same quantity. 2.2 They have submitted that certain quantity of scrap received was very low quality and not fit for manufacture of ingots and in such cases they have sold the same as it is. Certain parties have approac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iability. 4. Heard both sides and perused the records. 5.1 In respect of the submissions regarding discharge of duty liability by M/s. Balaji Steel Industry, Trichy and M/s. Insha Steel Rolling Mills, Coimbatore, the buyers of MS ingots from the appellant, it is contended that they have paid up the central excise duty liability on the goods sold to them and further that such duty liability has also been collected from the appellant. We find that the appellant had raised this issue before the lower appellate authority, however the said authority has dismissed the plea on the ground that duty payment of MS bars by the buyer is nothing to do with the duty liability in MS ingots manufactured by the appellant. According to the ld. counsel, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Salem Automec. This definitely has not been done. The appellants are falling back on the ledger account of the said Salem Automec, which by any stretch of imagination cannot take the place of the document evidencing payment of duty. For this reason, this plea of the appellant will not succeed. 5.3 The final prayer of the appellant concerns sale of scrap as reflected in their balance sheet. The appellant represents that since the demand of MS ingots will require to be adjusted proportionate to the quantity of MS scrap that has been sold by them. From the perusal of para 6.5 of the impugned order, it appears that the appellant did not produce any evidence in support of their claim before the lower appellate authority. However, before this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
