TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (2) TMI 471
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s Objection to the appeals filed by the assessees. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a manufacturer of M.S. Ingots. On 07.09.2001, an investigation was conducted at the factory premises of the assessee. The stocks were also taken into consideration. After completion of the investigation the following discrepancies were pointed out:- (a) There was a shortage of input namely silicone manganese. For that shortage a demand of Rs. 2516/- was confirmed. (b) The assessee has removed excess quantity of finished goods. The amount shown in the invoice and the delivery challan are different. For that, demand of Rs. 20,283/- was required to be confirmed. (c) During the manufacturing of M.S. ingots some Runners and Raisers ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dropped and on variation of CENVAT credit involved for that demand was confirmed but the penalty was reduced to Rs. 25,000/-. Aggrieved by the said order, both the sides are in appeals. 3. Heard both sides. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the assessees submits that - 4.1 with regard to the demand of Rs. 2,516/- confirmed against them for shortage of silicon manganese, they are not contesting as the amount is negligible. Therefore, in these circumstances, penalty is not imposable. 4.2 He further submits that the excess quantity of finished goods noted by the Investigating Team is based on the buyers as well as weighment slip issued. On these weigh-ment slip debit note has been issued by the buyers. Therefore, the demand is o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iance of CENVAT credit in Form IV Register and purchase ledger, it is submitted that the assessee produced reconciliation statement duly supported by purchase ledger. When the appellants had given reconciliation statement, the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the same saying that the reconciliation statement was not signed by any authority therefore it will not be taken into consideration as a evidence. In the circumstance, he sought the matter can be remanded back to the adjudicating authority for a limited purpose to compare the quantity mentioned in Form 4 Register and the purchase register regarding CENVAT credit to ascertain the facts that the CENVAT Credit availed is correct or not?. 5. On the other hand, the learned A.R. submits th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....there are five issues which are to be dealt with separately. 7.1 Firstly I take up the issue of CENVAT credit involved on the shortage of silicon manganese. After physical verification of stock, it was found that the assessee has taken excess credit of Rs. 2516/- only and the same has not been contested by the assessees. In these circumstances, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly set aside the penalty as the adjudicating authority has not alleged against the assessees that these shortages of silicon manganese is due to fraud, collusion or any willful mis-statement or suppression of facts, or contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of the rules with intent to evade payment of duty. Therefore, the learned Commissio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed without payment of duty outside their factory. As there is an evidence produced by the assessee that the central excise invoices were issued in their own name and have been captively consumed for manufacturing of final product. In these circumstance, I set aside the impugned order quo demand of Rs. 30,95,597/-. As the demand is not sustainable, therefore, penalty is also not sustainable. Accordingly, this demand along with penalty are set aside. 7.4 With regard to the demand of duty on the quantity of 87.86 MTs of M.S. Ingots, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has verified the fact on the basis of evidence produced by the assessee such as RG I register which shows that the assessee has paid duty on these M.S. Ingots when the compound....