2017 (2) TMI 193

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion. 2.  Brief facts of the case are that M/s Manohar Lal Hira Lal Ltd., were engaged in the manufacture of Steel Wire (coated with Zinc & Copper) classifiable under Chapter 72 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They were availing cenvat facility. The manufacturing unit of M/s Manohar Lal Hira Lal Ltd. was visited by Officers of Central Excise on 16/11/2009. On the basis of investigation Show Cause Notice, dated 09/07/2010 was issued. The proposal in the said Show Cause Notice was for disallowance of Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 22,04,488/- and its recovery. Further there was a proposal to demand Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 6,61,269/- & Rs. 1,61,438/- under Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 194....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 6,61,269/-, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the demand of Rs. 3,13,794/- and did not interfere with balance demand of Rs. 3,47,575/-. He upheld the confirmation of demand of Rs. 1,61,438/- which was raised on account of alleged shortage of stock of finished goods. Aggrieved by the said order M/s Manohar Lal Hira Lal Ltd. preferred appeal against confirmation of demand and penalties. Revenue have also filed appeal against dropping of demand and setting aside of personal penalty on Manvendra Goyal, Managing Director, before this Tribunal. 3.  Heard ld. Counsel for the appellant who has submitted that out of the proposal for disallowance of Cenvat credit of Rs. 22,04,488/-, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) did not interfere wit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ords I find that in respect of recovery of Cenvat credit of Rs. 1,87,056/- & Rs. 1,48,431/-, I accept the arguments putforth by counsel for M/s Manohar Lal Hira Lal Ltd. that there were no allegations in the said Show Cause Notice that the inputs were non-duty paid that the inputs were not received in the factory that the inputs were not issued for production. It is settled law that if there are no allegations about duty paid nature of inputs, inputs having received in factory and issued for production, Cenvat credit cannot be denied. I, therefore, set aside that part of impugned  Order-in-Appeal through which disallowance of Cenvat credit of Rs. 1,87,056/- & Rs. 1,48,431/- was upheld. Further, I also accept the arguments putforth by c....