TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (11) TMI 37
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ced mis-match of physical and book stock of finished goods, clearances of Modvat credit availed inputs and removal of Modvat credit availed inputs at a lower value. Officers seized the finished goods those were not accounted in the statutory records. Records were resumed and after investigation a show cause notice was issued proposing to confiscate the seized goods, demanding duty and for imposition of penalty. The appellant resisted the show cause notice on the ground that the seized goods were day's production and the duty has been paid correctly on the modvatted inputs as they were scrapped and there was no clandestine removal of any goods. Adjudicating authority confirmed the demand, confiscated the seized goods with an option to redeem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cess stock of the finished goods seized by the authorities, it is being explained by the counsel that these were the production of the day and other finished goods found in the reception were yet to be tested hence not reached the RG1 stage and it is the contention of the counsel that the goods found in the factory premises need not be confiscated as there is no allegation that the appellant had intention to remove the goods. The appellant being a unit in a organized sector could not just simply wish away the responsibilities cast on him by the statute. It was for the appellant to at least record the seized goods in some kind of a record. On a specific query from the bench the learned counsel submits that even at this moment also he is not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed @ Rs. 40/- per kg. whereas the Modvat credit was taken at the value of Rs. 110/- per kg. The case of the Department is based on a document dated 12-12-97 of the appellant cited in the show cause notice itself indicating that they have received certain sheets of lesser weight from SAIL which were later scrapped. The appellant has not produced any evidence in support of their contention that these steel sheets were rendered as waste during the course of manufacture. Thus, benefit of Rule 57D cannot be extended to the appellant and has been rightly denied in the impugned order. The demand of Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 10,972.50 on this account is, therefore, upheld." As against this the authorized signatory in his statement recorded un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntion to the goods return memo issued by the depots and submits that the value indicated on the goods return memo would is (sic) for the damaged goods. After perusing the said goods return memo, it is seen that the depots prepared these documents for return of the spares lying with the depot. The said documents do not indicate anywhere that the outer tubs were received back from the customers as rejects. Be that as it may be, these outer tubs cannot be considered as scrap as the same were not damaged during the manufacturing of the finished goods. Advantage of the Rule 57D will be available to the appellant only if the inputs are damaged during the process of manufacture and not otherwise. These spares to my mind were dispatched by the appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as been rightly rejected by the original authority as an after thought. The demand of Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 36,343/- and Rs. 476/- involved on the inputs found short is, therefore, upheld." It can be noticed that the lower authorities have not considered the pleadings of appellant in totality. I find from records that the appellant has prepared a Good receipt note dated 22-11-1998 for the receipt of 230 outer tubs in the factory premises. The said GRN indicates that the goods were sent for inspection and there is an acceptance of the same after inspection. It is seen that the lower authorities have not considered the fact that the authorized signatory has stated in his statement that all the inputs are issued on the same date on w....