TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 595
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellants is that the appellants are manufacturer of plastic moulded parts for products like CTVs/Washing machine/Refrigerators etc which are chargeable to duty. The appellant gets the inputs both on job work, and also purchase on their own account for their own manufacture, the issue involved is whether the appellants on return back of such material to the supplier cleared their own raw materials on which Cenvat credit was availed by them and as to whether Cenvat credit involved on such self owned material was liable to be reversed by the appellants under the provisions of Rule 3(4) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002/2004. 3. Same as para 2.1 of his stay order. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellants states that there is no dispute about the f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....plier's Name, Challan number by which materials received, quantity of raw material and plastic, moulded components manufactured and returned back to the supplier. In case for any reason if the raw material received for job work was cleared as such, that was also recorded in the job worker register. It is further stated that the premises of the main supplier M/s Vimal Moulders (I) Ltd. was also searched and statement of Shri Satish Batra, director of the Company was recorded in the follow-up investigation. The appellant had sought copies of the verification reports drawn at the premises of M/s Vimal Moulders (I) Ltd. However the copy of statement of Shri Batra supplied to them. However, the request for cross-examination was made, officer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....answer to question No.11 of his statement dated 30.10.2007 is reproduced below:- "whether any verification of stock of raw materials lying on production-floor is done by him; it was answered - stock of WIP of raw materials, components and rejections as lying on floor is taken every month on the first day. We also produce the statements so drawn as on April 1, May and June, 2006, and respect of which question was put to him, "please confirm as to whether these statements prepared by you and also stated about the material shown in the statements." In answer it was stated that the statement prepared by him after stocktaking of WIP material, further indicating that item wise quantity of WIP material lying on production floor on the first of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was working in the factory since 2006. Accordingly, he concluded that cross-examination of RK. Mallick is not warranted in this case. Further, as regards enquiry conducted at the factory premises of M/s Vimal Moulders (I) Ltd., Gurgaon, the Additional Commissioner found that the receipt materials is not under dispute. Further, observing that in the notice it have not been stated that suppliers were not made the parties who sent materials for job work. The allegation is that material received for job work were consumed by the appellant in the factory and thereafter they cleared their own raw materials on which credit was availed, Accordingly, the learned Counsel states that there have been miscarriage of justice by not giving an opportunity....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ount equal to the credit availed on such inputs in contravention of Cenvat Credit Rules, and therefore the demand was rightly made. The adjudicating authority also relied on the ruling of the Apex Court in the case of CC, Madras Vs D. Bhoormull reported at 1983(13) ELT 1546 (SC), wherein the Apex Court held- "the Department would be deemed to have discharged its burden if it adduces only so much evidence circumstantial or direct as is sufficient to raise a presumption in its favour with regard to the existence of the fact sought to be proved" 7. Having considered the rival contentions, it is evident that in some cases after receipt of the material on job-work basis, the finished goods could not be produced in the given time span. The ....