TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 161
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) Respondent (s) ORDER Per Shri P.K.Choudhary 1. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of M.S. Ingots falling under chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On 08.11.2006, the officers of the department carried out stock verification at the factory premise of the appellant and found that there was a shortage of 31.705 MT of finished....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Central Excise Duty of Rs. 81,280/- along with interest and irregular availment of Cenvat Credit of Rs. 3,81,479/- with interest and to impose penalty. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order. Hence, the present appeal before the Tribunal. 2. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 3. The ld. Advocate for the appellant submitted that there was an extra layer ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f duty by suppressing facts. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Mundra Ports & Special Economic Zone Ltd. v. CCE & Cus reported as 2015 (39) STR 726 (Guj.). 4. The ld. AR for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the lower authorities. 5. I find that the impugned order has relied upon the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. repor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ourt has referred to the 'user test' outlined in the case of CCE, Coimbatore v. Jawahar Mills Ltd. reported as 2001 (132) ELT 3 (SC), which lays down the ratio in determining whether particular goods could be categorised as capital goods or not. 7. Regarding the shortage of finished goods detected during the stock verification, I do not find any force in the submission of the ld. Advocate, as it ....