TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 963
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2,33,311/- on the quantity of imported raw material which has not been received by them in their factory but had been diverted to their Head Office. Show-cause notice dated 11.11.2009 was issued for demand of wrongly availed CENVAT Credit, interest thereof and seeking to impose penalty. The said show-cause notice was contested by the appellant. Adjudicating authority after following due process of law, confirmed the demand raised with interest and imposed penalty. Aggrieved by such an order, the appellant preferred an appeal before the first appellate authority who also concurred the views of the adjudicating authority and rejected the appeal. 3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would draw my attention to the facts of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g from the records. It is his submission that the goods as mentioned in the Bill of Entry and on the documents for debiting the amount of CENVAT Credit attributable to such diverted goods do not match. He would also submit that the appellant was aware that the goods need to be taken to the factory and excess CENVAT Credit was wrongly availed. He would submit that the appellant has intentionally done so and if it would have not noticed by the audit party, it would have gone undetected. 5. I have considered the submissions made by at length by both the sides and perused the records. 6. The issue in this case is whether the appellant is required to be saddled with the duty liability of CENVAT Credit of an amount of Rs. 2,33,311/-, interest t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... only on the basis of invoices raised by the transporter indicating the quantity of the goods diverted to the sister concern. In my considered view if the quantity which has been delivered to the sister unit does not match in the case in hand though invoices prepared by the appellant is showing more quantity means that appellant has paid more duty. The intention of the appellant is very clear inasmuch as he has reversed the amount of CENVAT Credit attributable to the inputs cleared to their sister by raising duty paying invoice is the only conclusion that can be reached. I find that appellant is saddled with the duty liability of CENVAT Credit when the appellant has not taken CENVAT Credit of the duty paid on quantity which has been cleared....