TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 610X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... voices were issued showing that the capital goods were turned to the appellant’s factory, they have not been actually returned - The only explanation given by the appellant is that the documents evidencing that the goods have been returned is not traceable. Such a flimsy explanation is not acceptable. Demand upheld - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - Appeal No. E/40354/2018 - Fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reversed the same while removing the capital goods. Later, basing on three invoices dated 9.5.2011, the appellant again availed credit on these capital goods, although the goods were not received back into the appellant s factory. It is seen again that the appellant raised further three invoices dated 17.5.2011 so as to shift the capital goods to M/s. Shanthi Casting Works by paying duty of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed. 3. The ld. AR Shri R. Subramaniam supported the findings in the impugned order. He argued that the appellant while removing the capital goods initially to their job worker had issued returnable delivery challans and thereafter on 9.5.2011, it raised three invoices to the tune of ₹ 5,92,946/- showing that the capital goods are returned to the appellant s factory. However, the goods wer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ey have not been actually returned. The only explanation given by the appellant is that the documents evidencing that the goods have been returned is not traceable. Such a flimsy explanation is not acceptable. On the whole, it is seen that the demand raised requires no interference. The appellant has not been able to explain how and why they have availed such excess wrongful credit. I find that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
