2016 (9) TMI 42

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the appellants are manufacturers of Industrial Paints, Thinners and Powder Coatings falling under Chapter 32089029, 38140010 and 39073090 of the CETA, 1985 respectively and selling their products to their customers directly as well as through their distributors. 3. During the period from September 2004 to September 2005, the appellant received back goods that were rejected by the customers as sales sale return and had taken credit based on the RBA series invoices, an intermediate document generated upon receipt of rejected/returned goods, after correlating them with the original duty paying document (known as IBA invoice) as recorded the same in its record book. The Department objected to the fact that the appellant had taken credit amo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the CESTAT vide Final Order dated 01.7.2008 remanded the case to the original adjudicating authority to verify the correctness of the appellant s submission with regard to the documents furnished by the appellant. After remand by the CESTAT, the adjudicating authority in denovo proceedings allowed the appellant to produce the details of the RBA invoices and the original invoices. The appellant produced xerox copies of the RBA invoices and IBA invoices. The original copy of the invoices could not be produced nor the invoice from customers could be produced. The original adjudicating authority vide his order dated 25.9.2008 confirmed the demand with interest and equal penalty. The appellant filed an appeal against the said order before the C....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gly been invoked in this case as there was no suppression of facts but the case of the appellant was made out on the basis of records audited by the Revenue. In support of this submission, he relied upon the following case laws : (i) CCE Vs. Chemphar Drugs & Liniments [1989 (40) E.L.T. 276 (S.C.)] (ii) Pushpam Pharmaceuticals Vs. CCE (1996 (78) E.L.T. 401 (S.C.)] 7. On the other hand, learned Commissioner (A.R.) reiterated the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and submitted that the impugned order is perfectly in accordance with law because the adjudicating authority, after remand by the CESTAT, has examined each and every document furnished by the appellant and after examination of the documents, allowed the credi....