2013 (2) TMI 334

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....des, I am of the view that the appeal itself requires to be finally disposed of at this stage. Accordingly, after dispensing with pre-deposit, I take up the appeal.   2. In adjudication of a show-cause notice dated 18.03.2010 which had inter alia demanded Rs. 4,25,645/- being the amount of CENVAT credit taken by the assessee on inputs allegedly written off their books of accounts, the original authority confirmed the demand against them under Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 read with Rule 3(5B) of the said Rules as also with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. It also demanded interest thereon under Section 11AB of the Act, apart from imposing a penalty equal to duty on the assessee under Rule 15(2) of the CCR 2004 read w....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e alleged writing-off was, in fact, a wrong entry of account head due to a clerical mistake and this mistake was rectified during the year 2009-2010. This letter further reads thus: We have attached the details of stocks, which were considered for the difference in standard cost and actual cost. You can notice that, these inputs still exist and we have used some of these materials after 2007-08.   However, this letter is not immediately accompanied by any details of stocks . The learned counsel for the appellant, in this context, invites my attention to certain accounts found elsewhere in this compilation. The learned counsel has laid focus on the document seen on page 74 of this compilation, which is said to be the Journal Entry....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....   5. The documentary materials produced by the appellant would, by and large, indicate that the party had categorically stated before the original authority that they had not written off their books of accounts any quantity/value of slow moving stock and that the confusion had arisen on account of a clerical mistake whereby a wrong account head happened to be entered in the inventory account. From the records, it appears that this plea was raised in the so-called certificate . However, this document does not show that it was received by any officer of the department. Ignoring this document, one has, now, to look at the appellant s letter dated 28.06.2010 addressed to the Central Excise Range Officer. This letter indicates that it ....