2006 (5) TMI 320

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e 57-I(4) and Rule 57AH(2) read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, being the amount of credit availed by the assessee on "Engines and Alternators" which had not been actually received in their factory during the period from 1-4-1990 to 19-5-2001 and imposing the penalty of the like amount on the applicant. According to the Revenue, certain discrepancies were noticed when the excise officers visited the headquarters of the appellant company on 5-12-2000, between the number of engines on which CENVAT credit had been availed by the unit, the physical stock of engines available in the factory. When the officers visited the unit on 19-5-2000, the stock and Sl. Nos. of diesel engines and alternators available in the factory was as....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o basis for the allegation that 'inputs' mentioned in Annexure 'D' and Annexure 'I', were received in their factory was given in the show-cause notice. The assessee kept on alleging that the annexures drawn by the department was incorrect. A reconciliation statement was produced by the assessee, showing relevant details of 30% of the entries of the Annexure 'D', which according to the assessee also appeared in Annexure 'B' to the show-cause notice. A test check of entries proved that the reconciliation done by them was correct. It was urged on behalf of the assessee that similar instances of engines and alternators cleared on payment of duty existed in Annexures 'D' and 'E' and these were listed in Annexure 'K' produced on behalf of the ass....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....is material and come to its own conclusion rather than to entrust a part of its work of quasi judicial nature to a subordinate. It appears that the Investigating Officer had put up some note dated 15-10-2003 reporting that the claims made by the assessee through Annexures 'F', 'G' and 'K' were reconciled and that he had agreed to most of the entries. The Investigating Officer in his note appears to have stated that out of the demand of Rs. 61 lakhs, the discrepancies pointed out was found to be correct and worked out to Rs. 12 lakhs only, and the balance amount was to be demanded from the assessee. It appears that the Commissioner acted on such a recommendation contained in the note without applying his own mind as to whether there were any....