9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 1108X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sition of equal penalty. Brief facts are as follows:- 1. The Appellant is engaged in manufacture of lead and zinc concentrates ("final products") falling under Chapter 26 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Appellant availed Cenvat credit on inputs and capital goods. As required under provisions of Rule, 4(2)(a) wherein it has been provided that in respect of capital goods received in a factory in any financial year, credit shall be taken only for an amount not exceeding 50% of the duty paid on such capital goods in the same financial year. Thus, the balance 50% of the credit is available in the next financial year or immediately succeeding financial year. Accordingly, the appellant in the month of April, 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there being no actual discrepancy. The appellant maintained the books of accounts on the SAP system of accounting. The appellant also submitted a schedule of entries showing voucher wise purchase of capital goods and the deferred amount of credit for the capital goods received in the financial year 2015-16. However, Revenue issued show cause notice dated 19/08/2019 observing that the appellant have explained the discrepancy and have requested for verification of the records. But, it appears without such verification, it was alleged that appellant failed to provide any documentary evidence to prove that they have availed less Cenvat credit/proportionate credit in the previous Financial Year. The amount of Rs. 2,83,137/- was demanded under R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onal duty during the accounting year 2015-16, the total amount comes to Rs. 2,83,136.87/- or rounded off to Rs. 2,83,137/-. 5. Accordingly, Learned Counsel stated that there is no discrepancy and the court below have erred in confirming the demand with penalty. Accordingly, he prays for allowing of the appeal with consequential benefits. 6. Learned Authorised Representative for Revenue relies on the impugned order. 7. Having considered rival contentions, I am satisfied that there is no discrepancy and the whole confusion has occurred on account of clerical error in the account/store section of the appellant who initially submitted the figures to the audit, wherein this amount of Rs. 2,83,137/- was left out erroneously. Thus, I find that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
