9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1008X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accessories/parts under bill of entry No. 892218 dated 30.6.2008. The machines imported under bill of entry No. 873803 were later claimed to be sold as scrap by the appellant in 2010. The Revenue suspected that the capital goods imported under bills of entry No. 873803 and 892218 and procured under domestic invoices No. 75 and 76 both dated 08.07.2008, on which the appellant had availed the Cenvat credit of Rs. 9,36,678/- has been diverted and the credit should be recovered in terms of Cenvat Credit Rules. After search of the premises of the appellant s factory, the panchnama dt. 28.08.2012 was drawn and a statement of Shri Sushant Gupta, partner of the firm was recorded. The searches were also conducted at the office-cum-residence of Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lying at the factory premises and could be verified. He further submits that the department was relying on the statement of one partner and ignoring the statement of other partner. Ld. Advocate also submits that the partner on whose statement, the department is relying was new to the firm and did not check description of the goods properly. On the other demand pertaining to the utilization of excess credit of BCD, he argued the extended period could not be invoked as the details were given to the department on 01.11.2012 and there was no misrepresentation of facts. He relied on the following case laws: (i) CCE & ST vs. M/s. Monsanto Manufacturer Pvt. Ltd. in Central Excise Appeal No. 370 of 2013 (ii) CCE, Jaipur-I vs. Tara Chand Naresh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vailed excess credit of BCD and utilized the same and the details of related 6 purchase bills from M/s. Dorkon MKS Gmbh & Co. KG came to light only on 01.11.2012. The appellant had not disclosed this information and it came to light when the department investigated the matter. In this regard, he relied upon the following case laws:- (i) CCE vs. Surat-I vs. Neminath Fabrics Pvt.Ltd.-2010 (256) ELT 369 (Guj). (ii) A.N. Guha & Co. vs. CCE, Bhuaneswar-1996 (86) ELT 333 (Tri.) 5. In his rejoinder, Ld. Advocate contends that the Revenue did not verify the goods of second bill of entry and they relied mostly on the statements. He also referred to the quotation on page 50 of his written compendium and pointed out that the weight of the motor w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issioner (Appeals) are very terse and restricted to simply endorsing the order of the adjudicating authority without giving any kind of analysis on the submissions of the appellant made before him and the case laws cited by the appellant. Such an order, which lacks judicial analysis of the contentions of the appellant, does not do justice to any of the sides. Hence, the matter requires to be re-adjudicated by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), who should give proper findings on averments and documentation furnished by the appellant in their defence. 9. On the issue no. (ii): I find that the allegation is that the appellant have taken excess Cenvat credit of BCD, additional duty of customs and customs cess against which paints were got importe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
