TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 1352X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... without production of any other evidences for demand of reversal of Cenvat credit such as any investigations of suppliers of raw materials, recording of input output ratio of the Appellants finished goods etc. The Appellant have produced a CA certificate showing the detailed reconciliation of each raw material type along with appeal paper book which goes to prove that the adjudicating authority has incorrectly understood the total matter at hand and proceeded to confirm the demand on irrelevant grounds. There are no investigation has been conducted by the department to prove the allegation of excess consumption apart from incorrect assumptions and calculations in the case and thus the recovery of Cenvat credit merely based on differences in figures of consumption cannot be made by the department - the demand has been raised for the period 2012-13 to 2015-16 in 2017. No explanation has been furthered by the Department in respect of such gross delay in proceeding with the matter. Therefore, the invocation of the extended period of limitation is not justified. The demand for recovery of Cenvat credit only on assumption and presumptions cannot be sustained is accordingly set ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... od of limitation and alleging suppression of facts by the Appellant. The appellant by its letter dated November 2, 2017 duly replied to the said show cause cum demand notice pointing out inter alia that the Appellant has 3 units within the same manufacturing complex having single excise registration and that it uses common raw material such as pre-form, essence and sugar in manufacturing aerated beverages and other fruit based drinks in all its units. That it transfers various raw materials between its units in the same complex and records the same in its stock records for both the units i.e. the transferring unit and the receiving unit. Thus, if one looks at the stock records of individual units, the consumption of raw material in the transferring unit would be having certain quantity of raw material sent by the unit to another unit. Similarly the receiving unit would account for the same as received from the transferring unit and would show the same in its consumption also once used in manufacture of finished goods.However, at the company level and for the purposes of excise, all the units are treated as one single assessee and hence the inter unit stock transfer is netted of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... availment and less consumption of the inputs which is factually incorrect. (v) That the Appellant has already provided detailed reconciliation for the same before the Adjudicating authority which has been incorrectly interpreted by the Ld. Adjudicating authority. (vi) That there is no difference whatsoever in consumption of raw materials as per ER 6 and as per the stock records maintained by the Appellant. 3.1 He further relied on the following judgments: a. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAIPUR Versus MADHYA BHARAT PAPER LTD. 2017 (346) E.L.T. 317 (Tri. - Del.) b. REAL ISPAT AND POWER LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., RAIPUR 2015 (330) E.L.T. 311 (Tri. - Del.) c. CONTINENTAL CEMENT COMPANY Versus UNION OF INDIA 2014 (309) E.L.T. 411 (All.) 3.2 The learned Advocate has also produced records of RG 23A Part 1 along with stock summary to show that the inter unit transfer of raw materials is clearly shown in its stock register and that the same cannot be considered as consumption in two units i.e. in the unit transferring the said input and the unit actually consuming the said input in manufacture of finished goods. 3.3. It is his submission that the demand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eipt of UNIT 1 and thereby the same will also be a part of consumption of UNIT 1 in the column TOTAL ISSUED. The above inter unit transfer of raw materials which is captured by the Appellant in its stock account is netted off while filing ER 6 returns as the same is for a single excise registration number and all the units are treated as one single assessee. Thus, the moot allegation that the Appellant has shown excess consumption of inputs in its stock records cannot be sustained from what has been elaborated above. Further, the adjudicating authority has also in the order stated the above findings but has proceeded to confirm the demand on other grounds such as incorrect challan numbers for transferring and receiving units which do not involve the moot allegation of excess consumption of raw materials on which the demand has been raised for recovery of Cenvat credit. 7. The Appellant have also produced a CA certificate showing the detailed reconciliation of each raw material type along with appeal paper book which goes to prove that the adjudicating authority has incorrectly understood the total matter at hand and proceeded to confirm the demand on irrelevant grounds. 8. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
