2019 (4) TMI 1069

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... issued alleging that the assessee had not used Engineering Goods i.e. Capital Goods, on which Cenvat Credit have been availed, in or relation to the manufacture of final products and it has also been alleged that the assessee had adjusted such capital goods against physical goods against physical shortage/obsolescence in their stores account and spare consumption account resulting in availing in-admissible Cenvat Credit under Rule 3 (1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Rule 2 (a) of the CCR, 2004. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand as raised in the Show Cause Notice and disallowed the excess credit of Rs. 11,66,289/- along with interest and imposed penalty of equal amount under Rule 15 (2) of CCR, 2004 read with Section ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ommissioner (Appeals) has travelled beyond the scope of Show Cause Notice by bringing the usage of "inputs" also which was not there in the Show Cause Notice, by asking the Adjudicating Authority to check the actual demand by verifying the documents for inputs and capital goods with respect to invoices and accounts, maintained thereon, in the form of RG23C part 2 and RG 23A Part 1. The Ld. Advocate further contends that the only allegation raised in the Show Cause Notice was that the Respondent assessee had not used the goods, found physically short, opposite engineering store ledger, with the assumption that all goods entering the engineering store were cenvatable. There is no allegation that the shortage was due to clandestine removal.....