2008 (8) TMI 702

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Shri Sumit Kumar, DR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - Both the appeals are arising out of a common order and, therefore, both are taken up together for disposal. 2. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Fluorescent Tube Light classifiable under sub-heading No. 8536.90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 198....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ment stated that breakage of glass shells of 7-8% during transit is not corroborative with any evidence. He further submits that by letter dated 11-4-2005, they informed that they received the inputs in cardboard boxes duly sealed. He also submits that Revenue has confirmed the demand of duty on the basis of the statement of the Director and no inquiry was conducted. He also submits that Rule 6pay....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... further submits that the Appellants have not produced any evidence in support of their contention. Thus, the demand of duty and penalty are justified. 5. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, it is seen that Rule 6(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 provides where a manufacturer avails of Cenvat credit in respect of any input and manufactures such final products, wh....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ch input was washed away and not used in the manufacture of finished products since they settled down as insoluble residue in transit. In present case, Credit was denied on inputs breakage in transit before the same were received by the Appellants in their factory. So, the facts of the present case is different from the decision of the Hindustan Lever Ltd. (supra). 6. I find that the Direc....