9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1423X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mesh Nair Three issues involved in the present case are: 1) The Cenvat Credit was denied on the stock lying on 31st March, 2003 on the ground that as per notification 40/2003-CE (N.T.) dated 30/04/2003 when there was no change in the stock on 01/04/2013, the assessee is required to give intimation which was given by the appellant. 2) The credit was denied on the ground that the appellant have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ard, he submits that non filing of notification is only a procedural lapse. In the reply of the Show Cause Notice, the appellant have clearly stated that there was no change in the stock declared as on 31/03/2003. He also submits that there is no time limit to give the intimation. Therefore, the submission made in the reply could be taken as intimation. 2.1 As regard, the second issue, he submits ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in terms of notification 40/2003-CE (NT), the only lapse on the part of the appellant was that they have not given intimation as there is no change of stock as on 01/04/2003. However, they had filed declaration for the stock as on 31/03/2003. Since, in their reply they had stated that there is no change in the stock, the same may be considered as intimation, as there is no time period stipulated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nvoices by the appellant. However, for the remaining amount, appellant failed to produce any invoices. In absence of invoices, it cannot be ascertained that the goods cleared is covered by notification 38/03-CE. Therefore, the demand of Rs. 23,608/- is upheld. 4.3 As regard penalty since the major demand is set aside and the demand which was confirmed also relates to the applicability of the noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
