2018 (10) TMI 315

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....enalty. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are manufacturers of control panels falling under Chapter Heading 8538 1010 of CETA. During the scrutiny of ER-1 returns for the month of January - February 2014 filed by the appellant under Rule 12 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and Rule 9(7) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, it was noticed that the assessee had shown a total closing balance of Rs. 15,587/- in their CENVAT account whereas in the ER-1 returns for the month of February 2014, the total opening balance was shown as Rs. 8,94,380/-. It appears to the Revenue that the assessee had availed excess CENVAT credit of Rs. 8,78,793/- in their CENVAT account for the month of February 2014. On enquiry, it was found....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rused the records. The learned CA appearing for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the documentary evidence on record and also the Rule 10 of CENVAT Credit Rules. He further submitted that the appellant vide their letter dated 16.7.2012 intimated to the Range Superintendent that they are shifting their premises and also requested to cancel the old registration number as they have shifted their premises and applied for the new registration for the new premises. The appellant had also intimated that as per June 2012 return of the old registration, they have a closing balance of Rs. 8,92,384/- as on 30.06.2012. The appellants have also filed Jul....