9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 688X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... leared certain waste and scrap from the factory. The department contended that they have cleared the waste and scrap of inputs and capital goods and rejected/damaged inputs on which they had availed CENVAT credit and have not reversed the credit availed on such inputs while clearing such wastes and scraps from the factory in contravention of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. A total of 13 show- cause notices have been issued to the appellants covering period 2002-07 as detailed below: Sl. No. OIO No. & Date Period Involved Amount Demanded Amount Confirmed 1 54/2004 dt. 28.10.2004 Hqrs. Adjn. 07/2002 to 12/2002 11,06,197 10,97,199 2 20/2005 Hqrs. Adjn. dt. 28.3.2005 01/2004 to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the following show-cause notices. Sl. No. Show-cause notice and date Period Covered Duty demanded 1 C. No.V/27/3/48/2006 Adjn. dt.28.8.2006 08/2005 to 03/2006 3,56,555 2 C.No.V/27/3/2/2007 B.3 dt.27.2.2007 04/2006 to 11/2006 3,37,501 3 C.No.V/27/3/21/2007 dt.20.7.2007 12/2006 to 03/2007 4,80,329 Hence this appeal. 3. The appellants submitted that the learned Commissioner (A) has erred in passing the order simply on the premise that the appellant had not been able to establish that they had not taken CENVAT credit on the capital goods involved in the impugned three show-cause notices; in fact, it was for the department to prove that the appellants had claimed MODVAT or CENVAT credit. The learne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T 379 (P&H) * UOI vs. Hindustan Zinc ltd.: 2008 (225) ELT 50 (Raj.) * UOI vs. Garware Nylons Ltd.: 1996 (87) ELT 12 (SC) * C.J. Shah & Co. vs. CC (EP): 2017 (347) ELT 168 (Tri.-Mum.) * Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. LTd. vs. CCE: 2016 (343) ELT 1016 (Tri.-Kol.) * Uniworth Textiles Ltd. vs. CCE: 2013 (288) ELT 161 (SC) * National Aluminum Co. Ltd. vs. CCE: 2004 (177) ELT 599 (Tri.-Del.) * CCE vs. Gujarat Cylinder (P) Ltd.: 2015 (317) ELT 582 (Tri.-Ahmd.) * Delco Precitone Jewellers (P) Ltd. vs. CC: 2000 (124) ELt 1105 (Tri.) * Shriram Alkali & Chemicals vs. CCE: 2010 (259) ELT 77 (Tri.-Ahmd.) 4.1 The learned counsel further submitted that the authority must not act on material coming on record subsequent to the stage o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rned Commissioner (A) that the appellants have failed to give evidence to the effect that they have not availed CENVAT credit. It was the duty of the Department to prove such utilization of CENVAT credit rather than it is for the appellants to disprove the same. We accept the ratio of the cases cited by the appellants. On perusal of the documents, the items cleared by the appellants appear to be in guise rubber, washer, scrap of MS angles, plastic scrap, mixed metals scrap, CS pipe cut pieces, etc. When the appellants have given elaborate list of items cleared by them as alleged in the show-cause notice, it was incumbent upon the department to verify whether credit was availed or not. There are no reasons to disbelieve the claim of the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
