2008 (12) TMI 531

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the officers of the department in October '03, it appeared to the department that PIL had short received inputs or had rejected the consignments of inputs and had not reversed cenvat credit relatable to the short received/returned inputs. A notice was issued proposing to demand the credit relatable to short received/rejected inputs during the period 04/02 to 07/03. It appeared that PIL had availed undue credit to the extent of Rs. 1,34,164/- during this period. They had reversed suo motu an amount of Rs. 36,593/-. The department had ascertained short receipt of inputs and rejection of inputs from the 'Inward Material Rejection Reports' (IMRR) of the assessee. In adjudication, the authorities held that the assessee had willfully suppressed t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....), in which it was held that mere omission to give correct information was not suppression of facts unless it was deliberate to stop the payment of duty. Suppression meant failure to disclose full information with intent to evade payment of duty. The appellants had reversed credit of even small amounts due to short receipt of inputs such as Rs. 568/-, Rs. 9/-, in various years. The appellants paid an average of Rs. 15 crores as central excise duty every year and availed Cenvat credit of around four crores per annum. Therefore the allegation of suppression of facts to avail undue credit of Rs. 568/-, Rs. 9/- etc. in various years was not justified. Appeal No. E/357/2006 4. In appeal No. E/357/06, Revenue seeks imposition of equal ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... were no short receipts as alleged in the Show Cause Notice. It was submitted by the assessee that they had consumed entire inputs received and that the department had not put forth any evidence to the contrary to support the demand of Rs. 97,571/-. After recording the above observation in the initial paragraph, the Commissioner goes on to find that the assessee had not disputed its alleged liability and the department's evidence relating to the IMRR. Obviously, the Commissioner rendered a wrong finding that the assessee had admitted that they had availed undue credit. No evidence is cited to substantiate the allegation that PIL had taken credit on inputs rejected or returned. In the circumstances, the demand of Rs. 97,571/- is not sustaina....