TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 955X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant that they were maintaining separate records. As the records maintained by the assessee-appellant were not available with the department, therefore, by giving the benefit of doubt, it is held that the appellant were maintaining separate records during the impugned period. Therefore, the appellant cannot be asked to pay @8% of the value of the exempted goods. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Appeal No. E/1915,2014/2007 - A/63068-63069/2018-EX[DB] - Dated:- 5-9-2018 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Bijay Kumar, Member (Technical) For Assessee (s): Shri Surjeet Bhadu, Advocate For Revenue (s): Shri G. M. Sharma, AR ORDER Per: Mr. Ashok Jindal Both sides are in appeals against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ining separate account on inputs/input services which were used in the manufacture of dutiable as well as exempted final products. Against the said order, both sides are in appeal. The assessee is in appeal against the demand of duty whereas the Revenue is in appeal against the dropping of penalty against the assessee. 3. The Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee-appellant submits that to manufacture of Chloroquin Phosphate Tablet , the following inputs were used (a) Chloroquin Phosphate , (b) Strach IP Grade, (c) Magnisium Stearate, (d) Talcum (e) Poly bags. The allegation is that the assessee-appellant was availed Cenvat credit on inputs namely Starch IP Grade Magensium used in the manufacture of Chloroquin Phosphate Tab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ff. We take a note of the fact that the assessee-appellant submitted that they were maintaining separate records and they were not able to produce these records before the adjudicating authority, as the records were resumed by the Headquarter Preventive, Chandigarh on 06.03.2002. It was presumed that the appellant is not maintaining separate records. We further take a note of the fact that the record was called, but, it is reported by the concerned department that the stock register could not be traced out despite best of their efforts and it was also reported that their records indicates that the private register maintained by the assessee-appellant were earlier examined during March, 2000. However, the same was found to be neither authent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
