Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2017 (3) TMI 1094

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al dated 21.08.2008 confirms the demand of Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 1,03,20,382/- ( One Crore Three Lakh Twenty Thousand Three Hundred Eighty Two Only] along with interest and an equivalent penalty is also imposed against appellant assessee, M/s Resham Polymers Ltd. The penalties of Rs. 10,00,000/- [Rs Ten Lakhs Only] and Rs. 5,00,000/- [Rs Five Lakhs Only] have been imposed respectively on Shri Pradeep Lohia (Managing Director) and Shri Harish Arora, Patner, M/s. Bombay Golden (India) Regd. 2. Brief facts are that: i) The appellant assessee M/s. Resham Polymers Ltd. is engaged in the manufacture of polyethylene sheathing compound of Chapter 39 of CETA, 1985. Raw material is Polythylene Granules, which is manufactured by petroleum c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....urchased from different manufactures such as IPCL, GAIL, RIL etc., which was sold in the open market through one Shri Vivek Mishra. v) Revenue confirmed total demand of Cenvat credit of Rs. 1,03,20,382/- ( which includes Rs. 1,03,17,128/- as Central Excise Duty and Rs, 3,254/- as Education Cess). Hence these appeals. 3. The appellants have been represented by ld. Advocates Shri Balbir Singh, Shri Rupender Singh and Shri K.M. Trivedi, and Revenue has been represented by ld. DR, Shri Amresh Jain. 4. Based on the appeal memoranda and written submissions the ld. Advocates for the appellants inter alia submit as under: i. The allegations of clandestine removal were made based on certain hand written documents found from the Head Office of th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e grave error due to following two reasons: a. Distance from GAIL Pata to Malanpur is around 190 KMS and GAIL Pata to Delhi is around 425 KMS. Therefore, there cannot be a case of transporter returning any cash and it can only be case of excess freight recoverable/ recovered by the transporter; b. Transporter statement was recorded on 22.08.2005, wherein he has stated that differential cash freight was recovered from Resham Petrotech Ltd. and there is no reference of Appellant in such statement. This aspect was made clear during the cross-examination of Shri Harish Arora, transporter. c. There is repetition of 500.5 MT of demand. vi. It is relevant to note that Resham Petrotech Ltd., which is using the same raw material i.e. Granules....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ndestine removal of raw material, the Cenvat credit cannot be denied. x. The Appellant strongly contended before the Commissioner that the alleged quantity of raw material i.e. 1575.58 MT was used for manufacture of finished goods sold after payment of duty during the relevant period. Neither the SCN nor the impugned order provided any explanation on any clandestine receipt of raw material of equivalent quantity, in absence of which appellant could not have manufactured the total quantity manufactured and sold by it during the relevant period. xi. The appellants rely upon the following case laws that corroborated evidence is required: a. CCE, Delhi-III Vs. AGR Steel Strips Pvt. Ltd, reported at 2016 (332)E.L.T. 166. b. Kedia Castel De....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ver physically received in the factory of appellant and the appellant, therefore, wrongly took the Cenvat credit of Rs. 41,40,880/- on this account. The appellant assessee has not given sufficient evidence that this material quantifying 6,70,000 Kgs of raw material, polyethylene granules was received by them and used for manufacture in their factory. Therefore, this demand of cenvat credit of Rs. 41,40,880/- on account of non-receipt of the above raw material(6,70,000 Kgs) in their factory (out of total demand of Cenvat credit of Rs. 1,05,66,429/-) along with interest and imposition of corresponding equivalent penalty is hereby sustained. 6.2 Out of the total demand of Rs. 1,03,20,382/-, (after sustaining demand of Rs. 41,49,880/- in above....