9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 482X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n-Moving Inventory, without reducing (writing down) the value of inventory. 2. The appellant is engaged, inter alia, in the manufacturing of Lead and Zinc Concentrates falling under Chapter 26 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, and is also availing Cenvat Credit on various inputs, capital goods and input services in terms of the provisions of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (Credit Rules). 3. The appellant had made provision in the books of accounts in respect of non/slow moving inventory, as a managerial tool to take decision for maintaining lowest possible inventory stock. The aforesaid entry (provision from profit) in the books of account, does not change the value of inventory in any manner. This accounting en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n which various stocks, on which credit has not been taken, are also covered. Further, at the end of each year such whole of provision is reversed and new /differential provision is created. It is further observed in para 2 of the show cause notice - since no details of cenvat credit taken on the capital goods was provided by the assessee, therefore, the rate of duty was adopted as applicable during the relevant period and demanded the amount of Rs. 19,47,459/-, computation thereof is given below:- Year Amount of provision Rate of duty Cenvat to be reversed 2010-11 Rs. 6,64,616/- 10.3% Rs. 1,68,455/- 2011-12 Rs. 46,53,789/- 10.3% Rs. 4,79,340/- 2012-13 Rs. 46,85,839/- 12.36% Rs. 5,79,170/- 2013-14 Rs. 34,23,478/- 12.36% ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ier order-in-original dated 10.02.2017. The Commissioner (Appeals) had rejected the appellant's appeal against the said order. 9. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal. 10. Ld. Counsel for the appellant reiterating the grounds taken before the authorities below, have demonstrated before me, that the demand has been made erroneously, by producing the extract of the trial balance, relevant extract of ledger account, extract of the expenditure ledger, screen shot of the sample journal voucher. Thus, the appellant under the accounting principles of conservation creates the provision at the end of each month and revises the said provision on monthly basis. It is further demonstrated that the demand was also made on the reversa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Income Tax purposes, cannot be equated with 'write-off' of the inputs under Rule 3(5B) of the CCR. 13. Ld. Authorised Representative for the Department relies on the impugned order. 14. Having considered the rival contentions, I find that Rule 3(5B) of the CCR is attracted only when the value of the asset and/or inventory is 'write-off' fully or partially, or wherein any specific provision to 'write-off' fully or partially has been made in the books of accounts. Admittedly, in the facts of the present case, the appellant has made only a 'general provision', which is not attributable to any particular capital asset/input. Admittedly, Revenue has not been able to identify the details of inventory or any asset, for which the general provisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
