2023 (11) TMI 55

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s falling under Chapter Heading 76071995 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the course of audit, it was noticed that the appellant had not paid duty on packaging charges amounting to Rs. 24,586/-; not maintained records as per Rule 16 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and also, they have cleared Aluminum Foils discharging concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 9/2003-CE dt. 01.03.2003 @9.6% instead of 16% during the period January, 2004 to May, 2004; further since the processes carried out in respect of Aluminum Foils does not amount to manufacture, they were required to reverse the amount equivalent to credit taken in respect of inputs used therein and the differential duty calculated as Rs. 2,30,887/-. Consequently, show....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....le on packaging charges is confirmed. 7. Regarding the CENVAT Credit of Rs. 44,469/- on rejected/returned goods, demand was confirmed as the appellant failed to produce the evidences ie. proper account of receipt and disposal of the same. We also find that the appellant had not enclosed any evidences in this regard, thus it is clear that they had not maintained proper records of receipt goods, processes carried out and disposal of the said goods under Rule 16 of CER,2002 on which credit availed; hence, the said demand is also confirmed. 8. Regarding the differential duty of Rs. 2,30,887/- confirmed by the authorities below, we find that in the show cause notice, it was proposed to recover the differential duty as equivalent to CENVAT Cred....