9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 870X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts of the case are that on 23.08.2012, the factory premises of the appellant, namely, M/s RNV Alloy Steels Pvt. Limited was visited on the basis of intelligence that they are resorting to suppression of production of clandestine removal of goods without issue of any invoice and without payment of duty. Physical stock was verified and certain shortages of stocks were found, on which the appellant paid the duty immediately. It was also found that for the period ending 30.06.2012 the appellant has filed stock statement with their banker showing excess stock in comparison to their statutory records. The bank officials are also investigated who stated that they have verified the stock and the stock statement submitted by the appellant is correct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held that the demand is not sustainable on account of difference between the stock statement submitted to the bank. He further submitted that the goods received from M/s Rathi Industries Limited were found sub-standard, therefore, the appellant did not pay the amount to them which does not mean that they have not received the goods. The inputs were used in the manufacturing of the goods which have been and cleared on payment of duty. The only reason that the appellant has not paid the amount towards procurement of inputs to M/s Rathi Industries Limited. In fact, as per Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, Rule 3 deals with the situation wherein the appellant is entitled to take cenvat credit. It does not talk anywhere about that if payment is not ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmitted their stock statement to obtain loan facility from the bank and similar type of situation has arose in the case of Suvarna Polymers Pvt. Ltd. (supra) wherein this Tribunal observed as under: "7. On careful consideration of the submissions made and after detailed perusal of the order, we notice that there is lot of force in the submissions of the learned Counsels for the appellants. We have perused the entire order and the various allegations made in the show cause notice and the reply filed by the appellants. It is seen that the only piece of evidence relied upon by the Revenue is the inflated figure pertaining to allegation of manufacture and clandestine removals for raising higher financial limit from the bank. Appellants had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eflectible that the adjudicating authority has placed reliance on the approximate stock value statement which was given to the bank to arrive at the conclusion that the assessee had undervalued the sale. The Tribunal, by adequate reasoning has repelled the said analysis made by the Commissioner and disposed it of. It has rightly done so. That apart, the Revenue has not established by way of adducing any cogent evidence that the assessee had any godown for the purpose of selling the goods at his behest. Be it stated, the matter would have been on a totally different footing, had the Revenue been able to produce some evidence on that score and further had there was a price difference in the invoices that were prepared in favour of the genuine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
