Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Puran Sons Alloys P. Ltd vs Cce, Jaipur on 9 January, 2013
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, NEW DELHI
COURT No. III
Excise Appeal No.3764 of 2010
Date of Hearing : 27.11.2012.
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No.375/DKV/CE/JPR-I/2010, dated 27.08.10 issued by CCE, Jaipur]
For approval and signature:
Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Judicial Member
1
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3
Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Puran Sons Alloys P. Ltd. Appellants
Versus
CCE, Jaipur Respondent
Coram: Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Judicial Member Present for the Appellants Shri Ravinder Singh, Consultant, & Shri Daman Preet Singh, Adv.
Present for Respondent Shri B.B.Mathur, DR Order No.A-55161-SM(BR) Dated : 09.01.2013 Per Ms. Archana Wadhwa:
After hearing both the sides, I find that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of refined lead ingots, lead rods and ingots falling under Chapter 78 of first schedule of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Their factory was visited by the Central Excise officers on 25.08.06 and on verifying the stock of the raw material, shortages of 18.870 MT of re-melted lead ingots and 43.380 MT of re-melted lead blocks involving duty to the tune of Rs.3,68,161/- were detected. Further it was found that the appellant has availed Cenvat credit of Rs.2,51,387/- in respect of 25.780 MT of refined lead ingots on the basis of invoice No.20 & 21 both dtd. 10.05.06 issued by M/s Gravita India Ltd., Jaipur. In as much as the refined lead ingots is the final product of the appellant, Revenue entertained a view that the said goods could not be used as inputs and the credit availed was not proper.
2. On the above basis, proceedings were initiated against the appellant for denial of credit as also for imposition of penalty resulting in passing of the impugned order by the original adjudicating authority and upheld by Commissioner (Appeals).
3. After hearing both the sides, I find that confirmation of demand of duty of Rs.3,68,161/- in respect of short found inputs is based upon the statements of the appellants representative admitting the said shortages. It is also seen that the appellant vide letter 05.09.06 challenged the such stock verification and also stated that the quantity of lead shown as short was lying in their kettle pans in their unit and was also under process which was not entered in their accounts. In any case, I find that there are no inventories prepared by the Revenue for arriving at the shortages. There is also no evidence for clandestine removal of the inputs in question. Mere reliance on the statement of authorised representative which in any case admitted shortages but not clandestine removal, is neither fair nor proper. I am of the view that the Revenue has failed to make out the clandestine removal of short found inputs.
4. As regards availment of credit on refined lead ingots, I find that the same was availed on the basis of invoices issued by M/s Gravita India Ltd. and were duly entered in RG-23A part 1&2 record, the same were shown as having been utilised in the manufacture of final product. The affidavit of Director also stands placed on records. Again I note that there is no evidence showing clandestine removal of the said goods. As such I find no justifiable reasons to upheld the impugned order, the same is set aside and appeal allowed with consequential relief to the appellant.
(Pronounced in the Open Court on 09.01.13) (Archana Wadhwa) Judicial Member RK-I ??
??
??
??
2