2017 (10) TMI 796

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....crap and finished goods were found in the factory but were not entered in the RG-I and that the daily stock account was maintained only upto 30.06.2012 the said goods were put under seizure the statements of various individuals were recorded and further investigation, according to the revenue revealed that during the period 13.12.2011 to 06.07.2012 Cenvat credit was availed by the appellant and utilized without maintaining quantitative records on RG 23 A Part-I register. Come to a conclusion that there was contravention of provisions of the Central Excise Act and the rules made thereunder, show cause notice issued on 04.01.2013 for confiscation of the seized goods, show cause notice dated 18.12.2013 was issued for demand of Rs. 45,31,371/- ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... appellant to the suppliers then there was received of their goods and consumption thereof. As regards, the confiscation of the goods which were found in the factory premises unaccounted, he would submits that it was due to the absence of regular person and there is no case made out by the revenue that the goods were sought to be removed clandestinely and there was no findings that from 30.06.2012 to 07.07.2012, there was clandestine removal of goods is set-aside the confiscation and set-aside the penalties also. 5. Ld. Departmental Representative draws my attention to the detail findings recorded by the first appellate authority and the adjudicating authority. 6. On careful consideration of submissions made, there are three issues wh....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the said credit has been utilized by them for paying central excise duty on the finished goods cleared by debiting the same in RG 23A Part-II register. It is also to be noted that the show cause notice does not demand any duty on the finished goods which were removed by utilising the Cenvat credit of Rs. 45,31,370/-. Be that as it may, considering during the issue from the another angle, even if it is assumed, that the appellant is not eligible to avail the Cenvat credit of Rs. 45,31,370/-, the fact that the same has been debited for duty liability on the finished goods, and there being no demand of duty from the appellant on the finished goods cleared, It would amount to reversal of Cenvat credit availed. On these two findings itself, the....