2019 (11) TMI 1047

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rers of PCB assemblies and during February 2015, they had declared duty payable as Rs. 17,09,145/- in their ER-1 returns but in the credit utilized column they had paid only Rs. 6,827/-. They claimed that certain goods were returned and they have adjusted the duty paid on such returned goods against their liability. Since no documents were furnished a notice dated 10/01/2017 was issued demanding Rs. 17,02,318/- being the balance of the duty payable as indicated in their ER-1 returns. After considering the reply of the assessee, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand made in the notice along with interest and 10% penalty. Aggrieved by the order of the original authority, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (A) who rejecte....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....3/- for exports was returned back, the appellant had availed Rs. 14,58,503/- as CENVAT credit in books of accounts. e. However, on re-examination and testing of goods, it was found that out of 890 units, 649 units of PCB were found proper and same was added to the stock and same was cleared on further removal in the regular course. f. Whereas, 241 (890-649) units of spoilt PCB's were considered as unfit and kept separately at the factory. With respect to 241 units the appellant had reversed CENVAT credit amount of Rs. 3,94,943/- vide Entry dated 27.7.2016 and this was disclosed in ER-1 returns of July 2016. g. In an independent transaction other than the above, the appellant had removed PCB's domestically vide inv....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r course of the business along with payment of duty. From the above facts, it is clear that the appellant had availed Rs. 17,02,316/- as CENVAT credit in February 2016 and the same was adjusted towards the liability of February 2016 and balance of Rs. 6,829/- was paid in ER-1 returns. 4.1 He further submitted that in fact there is no short payment of duty for the month of February 2016. He also conceded that the appellant has not disclosed the facts properly in their ER-1 returns but the same was only a procedural lapse and because of the procedural lapse substantive benefit cannot be denied. In support of his submission, he relied upon the following decisions: • Ashok Leyland Ltd. vs. CCE & ST: 2018 (364) ELT 899 (Tri.-C....