TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (6) TMI 188
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ief facts of the case are that the appellant is a manufacturer of Ingots. During the scrutiny of ER-1 for the month of December, 2008, it was observed that the appellant had taken Cenvat credit on the items namely M.S. Ingots on 05th December, 2008, which is the final product manufactured by them, on the strength of their own invoices issued on 04/12/2008. It was also observed that as per the ER-1 returns, the duty on the clearances affected in the month of December, 2008, was paid on 05/01/2009, whereas the duty paid against the said invoices was availed on 05th December, 2008. On further scrutiny of the returns, it was observed that vide 9 entries, serial number nil, all dated 05/12/2008 Cenvat credit to the tune of Rs. 15,77,237/- includ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Manager was recorded under Section 14 of the Act at 18.00 Hrs on 04/12/2008, wherein he stated that they- M/s Rana Steels, had neither placed any order for supply of M.S, Ingots to the notice/appellant nor had made any purchases from the noticee-appellants between 02nd December, 2008 to 04th December, 2008. He further stated that they had not received M.S. Ingots in their factory on the strength of invoices as aforementioned vide Sl. No.010100263 to 272, issued by the appellant. 3. On further query, the appellant submitted the copies of invoices vide letter dated 25/11/2009. On perusal of the invoices revealed that these invoices are issued to M/s Rana Steels (a unit of M/s K.K. Steels Ltd.) for sale of M.S. Ingots by appellant on 04/12/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rules, 2004, inputs and capital goods are defined, on receipt of which Cenvat credit can be taken/availed by an assessee. The goods in question are neither capital goods, nor inputs of the appellant. Further, Rule 9 of CCR 2004 prescribes the documents on the strength of which Cenvat credit can be taken by an assessee on receipt of capital goods, or inputs. Accordingly, it appeared to revenue that the appellant have taken irregular credit and utilized the Cenvat credit wrongly and accordingly vide show cause notice dated 11/01/2010, they were required to show cause, as to why the Cenvat credit involved with respect to the 9 invoices under dispute, totaling Rs. 15,77,237/- should not be disallowed and demanded along with interest and further....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce dated 24th June, 2009 asked for explanation, in reply appellant filed copy of invoices. Accordingly, the show cause notice dated 11.01.2010 being issued after more than 12 months, from 24/06/2009 is barred by limitation. 7. Further, arguing on merits, learned counsel states that admittedly the appellant had opening stock of 182.735 MT Ingots on 04/12/2008. Further, from the copy of invoices annexed in the appeal paper book, the learned counsel demonstrates that the lorry number(s) used for clearance, time of clearance, gross weight and net weight are mentioned. Further, other than Excise duty, Sales Tax have also been debited or charged. Further, there is endorsement of rejection by M/s Rana Steels (consignee). He further submits that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....teels. The adjudicating officer have erred in rejecting their evidences without following the process of law. Thus, his findings are vitiated. 9. It is further contended that taking of Cenvat credit is permissible under Rule 16 of CER 2002 when goods cleared are returned to the factory of the manufacturer due to any reason like rejection, etc. Further, revenue have erred in drawing adverse inferences based on apparent shortage of finished stock on the date of inspection, without bothering to reconcile the stock, with respect to clearances made on the date of inspection before the arrival of the inspection team. Further, it is a matter of record that freight have been paid for the disputed transaction, which is duly recorded in the Books ....