TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 930X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i unit from which goods were actually sold. Both the lower authorities have ignored the submissions of the Appellant with respect to verification of the returned goods by the Ld. Superintendent, Begusarai regarding identification of goods being returned at Barauni unit of the Appellant. Since the Appellant has been able to substantiate that the said goods were indeed received at the selling unit only i.e. Barauni by way of intimation letter dated 03/05/2011 being Exhibit M of the appeal paper book, duly supported by Chartered Accountant s Certificate in this regard, the orders of the lower authorities deserve to be set aside as there is no contrary evidence brought on record. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Begusarai and the same was used for re-making as per the provision of Rule 16(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Appellant states that out of the total rejection m Memos issued, 15 nos. of rejection memos were wrongly addressed in favour of Unit I and received by the Head Office. However, the Appellant correctly recorded the rejection in the books of Unit II by passing Journal entry in the books of the unit which had sold the goods. Further, the Appellant sought to avail Cenvat Credit amounting to ₹ 9,07,166/- of these rejected products as inputs and filed necessary intimation letter dated 03.05.2011 to the Superintendent, Begusarai along with Annexure reflecting receipt of goods in the factory. Such goods were physically ins ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Excise and Ors. [MANU/SC/1256/1995] (2) Securipax India Private Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Noida wherein The High Court of Allahabad [MANU/UP/1766/2013] (3) UM Cables Limited Vs. Union of India and Ors. [MANU/MH/0466/2013] (4) Shivam Electrical Industries Vs. Union of India [2018 (359) E.L.T. 46 (J K)] 6. The learned Authorized Representative appearing on behalf of the respondent department, justified the orders of the lower authorities. 7. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 8. In the instant case, it is seen that the Adjudicating Authority has confirmed the demand of Cenvat credit only on the ground that the document issued by the customers for return of excise paid goods was addressed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
