TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1231X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons of Section 11AC(1)(c) of the Act. Appeal allowed in part. - Appeal No. E/52211/2014-EX [ SM ] - Order No. 51393 / 2018 - Dated:- 10-4-2018 - Hon ble Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member ( Judicial ) Ms. Priyanka Goel, Advocate, for Appellant Shri U. Sengraj, (DR), for Respondent ORDER Per : Anil Choudhary The appellant - M/s Madhyanchal Steel Pvt. Ltd., was registered dealer with Central Excise Department and engaged in the manufacture of MS Bars/Angles etc., is in appeal against Order-in-Appeal dated 14th February, 2014, whereby the duty imposed at ₹ 13,46,036/- was confirmed along with equal amount of penalty with only relief that the Cenvat credit on duty paid inputs was allowed. 2. That on 27/12/2011, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng to ₹ 2,60,325/- involved in the Billets found short (77.438 MT) had been paid by them vide Entry No. 12 dated 27/12/2011 from their Cenvat Credit Account. He also deposed that since the Excise Assistant was not coming to factory, therefore entry of invoices from Serial No. 531 to 550 could not be made in RG-1 register and by accepting the same they had debited ₹ 3,36,930/- vide Entry No. 15 dated 27/12/2011 from their Cenvat Credit Account. (d) During the search of the residential premises of Director of the appellant - Shri Anil Jain, some duplicate transporter s (pink colour) copies of invoices and some stapled envelopes were found. Thus, total 19 invoices were recovered containing its own details. 17 invoices were fou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mount of ₹ 24,000/- was also deposited by the appellant as interest vide Challan No. 00005 dated 27/02/2012. Subsequently, Show Cause Notice dated 26/03/2012 was issued, proposing to demand duty of ₹ 13,46,036/- with proposal to appropriate matching amount already deposited with further proposal for interest and penalty. Further the Cenvat credit amounting to ₹ 2,60,325/- was proposed to be demanded under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and the same amount i.e. of ₹ 2,60,325/- already paid was proposed to be appropriated with interest and also proposal for penalty. With further proposal to appropriate the amount of ₹ 3,17,381/- towards penalty. 3. The appellant contested the Show Cause Notice by fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ices could not be made in the RG-1 register. This fact was also stated by the director of the appellant in his statement on the date of search i.e. 27/12/2011. Hence the clearances being made under proper invoices showing the element of duty payable which was payable on the forthcoming due date on 05/01/2012 thus the adverse inference drawn, pursuant to visit on 27/11/2012 is bad and cannot be levelled as clandestine removal. 4. As regards the amount of duty demanded ₹ 2,94,962/- allegedly on parallel invoices, it is submitted that there was no clearance on such invoices. The said invoices were prepared but the goods were not dispatched due to cancellation of the order. The only mistake on the part of the appellant is that they had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ace on 27/12/2011, wherein due date for payment of duty was 05/01/2012. Thus, as the due date for payment was not yet to come, the allegation of clandestine removal of goods on these invoices is not substantiated and accordingly the demand of ₹ 3,36,510/- is set aside. Thus, only the balance demand of ₹ 2,94,962/- (+) ₹ 7,14,564/- = ₹ 10,09,562/- (-) ₹ 2,60,325/- = ₹ 7,49,201/- is held payable as raised in the Show Cause Notice. Further, the admitted fact is that the appellant had deposited the amount of ₹ 13,46,036/- before the issue of Show Cause Notice (+) further ₹ 3,17,381/- towards penalty and further ₹ 24,000/- towards interest. Accordingly, I hold that the appellant is entitled t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
