TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (4) TMI 381
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....B) of Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the credit is required to be reversed only in case where the CENVAT Credit in respect of inputs has been taken as written off and shown in the Books of Account, but if the inputs were subsequently used in the manufacture then the credit is admissible. She submits that in the present case though certain quantity of inputs has been written off as shown in the Books of Account but the same was used in the manufacture of final products as writing of input is not due to non-availability of input but only due to accounting error. There is no evidence of removal as the input was received and used in the factory of the appellant. Therefore, the credit is admissible. She further submits that in both the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Credit Rules, 2004 is applicable, the same has come into effect from 11.5.2007 vide Notification No. 26/2007-CE (NT) dated 11.5.2007. Therefore, for the past period, the demand is not sustainable. She has relied upon the following judgments: - (a) Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs. CCE 2004 (173) ELT 382 (Tri-Del) (b) Tata Motors Ltd. vide Final Order No. A/93059/16/SMB dated 13.6.2016 (c) Tata Motors Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pune-I 2016-TIOL-1027-CESTAT-MUM (d) Lear Automotive India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Nashik 2012 (286) ELT 558 (Tri-Mum). 3. Shri N.N. Prabhudesai, learned Supdt. (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He further submits that even before insertion of sub-rule (5B....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....insertion of sub-rule (5B) of Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, this Tribunal in the appellant's own case decided the issue against them and according to the said decision, the appellant is required to reverse the credit on the written off quantity. Therefore, not only after insertion of sub-rule (5B) but also before the insertion of sub-rule (5B), the decision of this Tribunal will prevail. 4.1 As regards the learned Counsel's submissions that the said decision stand distinguished for the reason that the judgment of Greaves Cotton Ltd. (supra), which was relied upon by this Tribunal and on that basis, judgment of Maruti Udyog Ltd. (supra) was distinguished, but Maruti Udyog's decision given by this Tribunal was upheld....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n, the Commissioner has also noted that in the Auditor's Reports for the financial year 31-3-1999 to 31-3-2004 the Auditors have given their opinion that, the procedure of physical verification of the inventories followed by the management as reasonable and adequate in relation to the size of the company and the nature of the business, and that the valuation of the inventories is fair and proper in accordance with the generally accepted accounting principles. Thus from the stock verification as also from the reports of auditors, it was evident that certain inputs which were found short during the stock verification were written off from the books of accounts and the values of such shortages of inputs are shown in trial balance sheet and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 21. Penalty : Since duty demand confirmed by the Commissioner has been upheld by me, penalty equal to the duty amount imposed by the Commissioner on the appellant company under Sec. 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is justified inasmuch as the appellant company has evaded the payment of appropriate amount of central excise duty by suppression of relevant facts as already mentioned herein above. 31. The third and last issue for consideration is whether extended period is invocable for the demand of Cenvat credit taken in respect of inputs found short but ultimately written off in the books of accounts. On merits, both the Members have held that the credit is required to be reversed. The difference is only with resp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l excise department of the discrepancies noticed during stock taking and their writing off the same in the books of accounts. This position has been clearly admitted by the Excise Executive of the appellant firm in his statement dated 11-2-2004. This non-compliance to the instructions and withholding of information from the department tantamounts to suppression of facts. In a tax regime which places high reliance on voluntary compliance, the onus on the part of the assessee is quite high and failure to comply with the law can not be taken lightly. Therefore, I am of the view that the extended period of time has been correctly invoked to demand ineligible Cenvat credit taken in respect of inputs found short and which have been written off in....