TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 482X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Revenue has not been able to identify the details of inventory or any asset, for which the general provision has been made. Thus, the show cause notice is erroneous as the demand has been made even on the reversal of the provision. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeal No.52588 of 2019-SM - FINAL ORDER NO. 51858/2021 - Dated:- 15-9-2021 - SHRI ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri Hemant Bajaj and Shri Dhruv Tiwari, Advocates for the appellant Shri Pradeep Gupta, Authorised Representative for the respondent. ORDER The issue involved in this appeal filed by the assessee is whether the demand of cenvat credit is justified, under the provisions of Rule 3(5B) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... equired under Rule 3(5B) of Cenvat Credit Rules. In the show cause notice, the aforesaid demanded amount has been computed by assuming the provision for non-moving inventory appearing in trial balance, as write-off value. 5. Prior to the issue of show cause notice, Range Superintendent requested the appellant to submit the details of provisions made for non-moving inventory of store items (capital goods/inputs) in the books of accounts for the financial years 2009-2010 to 2014-15. The appellant in reply by their letter dated 16.04.2015 submitted that they are not required to reverse the cenvat credit as the provision in the books of accounts is not a provision for write-off . The appellant had also explained that the provision relat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 19,47,459/- 6. Accordingly, the show cause notice demanded reversal of cenvat credit, as aforementioned with proposal to impose interest and penalty. 7. The appellant contested the show cause notice, inter alia, submitting that the appellant was not required to reverse the cenvat credit as the value of the inventory has not been write-off . Further, it has been erroneously assumed by the Revenue, that the provisions made for non/slow-moving inventory is equal to write-off of the inventory. Such non/slow-moving inventory is not obsolete. Further, admittedly, the appellant has kept the inventory in their purchase store ledger at full value, and upon consumption, in regular course of business, the cost of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5 filed by the appellant. Thus, there is patent error, which is evident on the face of the record, and thus, the show cause notice is wholly mis-conceived and fit to be quashed. It is further urged that the Revenue have failed to notice that there is no change in the value of the inventory/capital goods in the books of accounts, and thus, it cannot be assumed that any value of the inventory/capital goods has been write-off , either fully or partially. Admittedly, there is no adjustment in the accounts for inventory/capital goods or in the provision made in the books of accounts. Thus, in the facts and circumstances, Rule 3(5B) of CCR is not attracted. 11. The appellant submitted that this case is covered by the decision in the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
