TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (10) TMI 1159
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was issued to M/s Leadstone Energy Ltd (herein after referred as the Appellant) demanding Central Excise duty of Rs.2,63,100/- along with interest and penalty equal to the duty under Section 11AC of the said Central Excise Act,1944, with respect to the removal of 1,11,808 Kgs of 'pure lead ingot' 'as such' during the period from September 2010 to March 2011. It was alleged that the Appellant has cleared the 'pure lead ingot' on which CENVAT Credit was availed, but were sold it 'as such' in the home market on payment of an amount as duty which was less to the tune of Rs.2,63,100/- than the amount of Cenvat Credit availed by them at the time of it's procurement. The Notice was adjudicated and demands were dropped by the adjudicating authorit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....actured by them were cleared in domestic market on payment of Central Excise Duty. (c) They imported pure lead ingot on fixed price basis on payment of customs duty including countervailing duty and also procured pure lead ingot from indigenous market as input for use in the manufacturing of their downstream products. (d) They not only availed the Cenvat credit of countervailing duty paid on imported material but also availed credit on indigenous inputs and utilized such credit for payment of duty: (e) There was no allegation that customs duty was not paid on the imported pure lead ingot. They maintained all records with respect to receipt, disposal, consumption and inventory of inputs. So, the allegation of contr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of pure lead ingot was not possible because the same was used for various downstream products and remained in various stage of production as in process material. So, it was technologically not possible to show the quantity of consumption of pure lead ingot in the manufacturing of individual downstream product. They had correctly determined the duty liability of the finished products manufactured and removed from their factory during the material period. They had rightly availed countervailing duty paid on imported pure lead ingot. So, the allegation of excess amount of Cenvat credit availed on imported pure lead ingot is not based on any legal provision. Therefore, the demand of C. Ex Duty with proposal of imposition of penalty and chargin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssue vide order dated 13.09.2011 and the Assistant Commissioner has also dropped the demand for the subsequent period vide order dated 10.01.2012. But, this order was overturned by the order of the Commissioner Appeals dated 20.07.2015. Accordingly, the appeals are filed by the Appellant as well as the department on the same issue. 13. We observe that the department has not adduced any evidence to substantiate the allegation that the Appellant has availed excess credit on the inputs and paid less duty at the time of clearance of the inputs 'as such'. In the grounds of appeal, the department stated that the Appellant themselves are manufacturers of pure lead ingot of a quantity more than required for its captive consumption. Hence, there ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e department is not sustainable. 16. The Appellant stated that they have maintained all records with respect to receipt, disposal, consumption and inventory of inputs. So, the allegation of contravention of rule 9(5) of the Cenvat credit rules is unfounded. It was also alleged that the Appellant failed to produce any evidence to prove the consumption of the pure lead ingot procured by them in the manufacture of any final product. We observe that the department has not adduced any evidence for diversion of Cenvat credit availed inputs 'as such'. All the allegations of the department were only on presumption basis, without any evidence. 17. One such allegation of the department is that during the period Sept 2010 to March 2011, the Appe....