2017 (8) TMI 775

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....als received under CT-2 forms were not used in the manufacture of power driven pumps primarily designed for pumping water. The show cause notices issued by the Revenue is as under: i. No. V(KSB)15-16/Adj/IV/03 dated 03/02/2004 ii. No. V(KSB)15-57/Adj/IV/03 dated 05/01/2004, 06/01/2004 and 05/03/2004 2. Appeal No. E/2572/2006 emanate from the show cause notice dated 03/02/2004.  Other two appeals viz. E/2560/2006 and E/1255/2007 emanates from three show cause notices dated 05/01/2004, 06/01/2004 and 05/03/2004. The demand raised by the adjudication orders are as under: S. No. Appeal No. Duty Penalty   E/2572/2006 Rs. 30,776/- Rs. 30,776/-   E/2650/2006 Rs. 13,43,674/- Rs. 13,43,674   E/1255/2007 Droppe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd and that is also arbitrary in absence of examination of the records. (iv) The authors of the depositions had made it clear that there was no maintenance of proper records for recording of the inputs received. 5. Learned AR says that, taking into consideration the preponderance of probability it cannot be said that the respondent has properly accounted for the inputs which were received under CT-2 forms. Accordingly, the adjudication cannot be said to have been made in accordance with law.  6. Further, submission of Revenue is that both the lower authorities have not at all examined what is the real object of the Notification. When the intended object is defeated the cases of respondent should have been decided in accordance with ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....here were no such details provided which is covered by appeal E/2650/2006. 10. So far as appeal E/1255/2007 is concerned, learned DR says that learned Commissioner (Appeals) committed an error without bringing out what are the documents verified by him has satisfied him to hold that the averments of the respondent were based on evidence. 11. In view of the above submission of Revenue, the matter may be sent back for proper examination of the quantum of the raw material purchased by the respondent under CT-2 certificate and quantum of the goods used for the notified purpose and the goods not used for the notified purpose for appropriate levy in accordance with law.  12. In reply to the above submission of the Revenue, the respondent ....