TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 1069
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The Show Cause Notice was issued on 05.05.2011 by invoking the extended period provisions basically in view of the Larger Bench decision of Vandana Global case. Subsequently, one more Show Cause Notice was issued on 30.01.2012 for the period 01.01.2011 to 31.03.2011 demanding reversal of Cenvat Credit of Rs.48,93,360/- on the same items. After due process, the Adjudicating Authority has dropped substantial amount of demand and confirmed the demand of Rs.81,15,293/- and Rs.20,63,465/- on angles, channels etc. and Rs.1,06,923/- and Rs.2,95,456/- on electrodes and Rs.57,680/- on account of cement. The Appellant is not contesting the confirmed demand of Rs.57,680/- towards cement. 2. The Ld.Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant submi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hartered Engineer and after careful consideration has dropped the major portion of the demand and only confirmed the demand wherein it was found that the inputs were not related to manufacture of the finished goods or where in relation to usage of any immovable properties like building, staircase, control room etc. Therefore, he justifies the confirmed demand and submits that the Appeals are required to be dismissed. 6. Heard the parties and perused the appeal papers and other documents places before us. 7. The Ld.Counsel submits that the Adjudicating Authority has not given bifurcation of the items specifically on which the demand has been confirmed. He further submits that the Chartered Engineer Certificate being referred to at Page....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....C. No Nill dated 09.01.12 (copy enclosed as Annexure-B) 3.0 Upon scrutiny of the documents and records submitted by the sold assessee as stated above, it reveals that they, during the period 01.01.2011 to 31.03.2011, availed and utilized Cenvat credit on the sold Items and the said electrodes which appears to be wrong and irregular as the same are neither "inputs' nor 'capital goods' and were not used for the manufacture of any capital goods as per the definition contained in Rule 2(a) & 2(k) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004." From a plain reading of the above extracts of the two show cause notices clearly shows that no specific enquiry or evidence was relied upon for the allegations. None of the two notices speak ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sh Certificate from another Chartered Engineer was prepared on the basis of this joint verification. The Superintendent of the Headquarters Anti -evasion unit who had participated in the joint verification exercise also gave his report dated 17.05.2013 in which he stated inter alia that - "during the verification exercise efforts were also made to understand the functions of all the different equipments and components named in the first report it is seen that the said report also contains a list of different activities/functions performed by the sand component/equipments and alongside, their possible placements in various slots under CET as parts/components/accessories/ equipments of various machines are also provided. Om examinati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dence to rely upon their allegations. After this, he has gone on to direct the officers of Headquarters Anti Evasion Unit to do the necessary verification and submit their findings which was done by them between 06.03.2013 to 07.03.2013. We find that there is no legal sanctity to undertake such an exercise after the Show Cause Notice was issued. Once the Show Cause Notice is issued and reply is filed by the Appellant, the Adjudicating Authority is required to consider the allegations vis-à-vis the replies filed by the Appellant and come to a conclusion. He cannot step into the shoe of the investigating authority and undertake a fresh investigation. In this case his undertaking of such an exercise has vitiated the entire adjudication ....