2014 (11) TMI 302

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....le 16 of the Cenvat Credit Rules cannot be accepted as such and therefore, they have to be considered as TV sets manufactured afresh and duty has to be paid. 2. Learned counsel submitted that the appellant has paid an amount of Rs. 26,50,000/- which is the difference between duty paid by way of reversal of Cenvat credit at the time of removal of the TV sets under Rule 16 of the Cenvat Credit Rules and total amount payable on TV sets if they were new and Cenvat credit could not have been taken on the same. In this case, it is the submission that the entire amount has been paid on this basis cannot be accepted. If the stand taken by the Revenue and confirmed by the authorities below is correct, the appellant could not have taken Cenvat credi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Revenue is that TV sets never came back to the factory. 5. After hearing both sides, we find that in the 'Appeal Memorandum' before us as well as in the reply to the show-cause notice before the Commissioner, the appellant had submitted a detailed statement giving details of models of TV sets, invoice number, dates etc. and showing details of TV sets which were sold. After going through the statement, we find that it is not possible to tally the returned TV sets with the dispatched ones. Learned counsel submitted that the appellant has no problem in preparing a statement matching the removed TV sets with the received ones. It is the submission of learned counsel that there is no clear observation that this statement has been v....