2013 (3) TMI 499

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Shri M.S. Negi, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Rakesh Kumar, Member (T)] The appellant firm is a manufacturer of paint. Shri Sudhir Mehta is the Proprietor of the appellant firm. During the period of dispute, they were availing Cenvat credit in respect of inputs used in or in relation to manufacture of their final product. The department's allegation is that in course of audit of the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Cenvat credit. On this basis, after issue of show cause notice, the Jurisdictional Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 4-4-2012 confirmed the demand of Cenvat credit of Rs. 54,34,152/- against appellant firm along with interest and while penalty of equal amount was imposed on the appellant firm under Rule 15(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was imposed on Shri Sudhir ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ne removal, that the department has neither examined any buyer nor they have examined the invoices issued during the disputed period to find out how much inputs could have been used for manufacture of the final product cleared during the disputed period, that even the discrepancy regarding stock position in RG-23A Pt. I statements and the bank statements was explained by the appellant Shri Sudhir ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ted inputs without reversal of the Cenvat credit and the demand has been correctly confirmed against them. He, however, fairly conceded that but for discrepancy in the monthly bank stock statements vis-à-vis RG-23A Pt. I, there is no evidence worth name on the record to show clandestine removal of cenvated inputs without payment of excise duty. 4. We have considered the rival submis....