TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (9) TMI 164
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....udulently availed. The finding in the impugned order is that while the appellant took Modvat credit in respect of Refined Glycerine, Stearic acid, Carbon black, Zinc Oxide, Reclaim Rubber, Synthetic Rubber, DOP, DBP stating them to be used in the manufacture of rubber parts like Stater, Seal ring, Sleeve Ring, Boot seal, Natural rolling seat, bush etc. for captive use in the manufacture of pumps, the inputs were not actually used for the aforesaid purpose of production. This finding has been reached based on the inspection of appellant's factory on 23-10-1999 and the statements recorded from several parties, including employees of the assessee and their suppliers. The credit in question was taken by the appellant during the period June 1996....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nation that it had to shift the "Rubber Products" manufacturing facilities at the behest of M/s. UPPCB is also not very convincing for on the examination of the said directive of M/s. UPPCB had only given general directions regarding either to control air pollution at 123/374, Fazalganj, Kanpur (the registered manufacturing premises of the party) or to shift the manufacturing facilities to another location, it had not given any specific direction with respect to rubber items manufacturing machines/facilities. The letter dt. 5-12-2000 (RUD No. 34) of UPPCB, addressed to the department clearly stated that no detailed inspection regarding plant and machinery were made by them and hence they cannot give any specific instances of the type and ki....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....accounts showed all through the receipt of the inputs in question in the factory. This position is not disputed in the adjudication order also. The RG-I and other statutory records also show production and use of these items. It is specifically seen that the Central Excise Officer had in January and April 1997 visited the appellant's factory and certified to the presence of goods, including rubber parts. Thus, the statutory evidence is entirely in support of the appellant's version that the inputs in question were used for the purpose for which they were received. Appellant's explanation about the shifting of the machinery is also borne out by its correspondence with the Pollution Control authorities as well as its intimation to the excise ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Pollution Control authorities and the statement of the employees of M/s. Risansi Industries Ltd. and Shri S.C. Tripathi would show that the appellant's claim that inputs in question were used for production of rubber parts was not correct and has been fraudulently made only to avail ineligible Modvat credit. 8. As already noted, the findings in the impugned order are contrary to statutory records maintained by all the manufacturing units. RG-I maintained by the appellant M/s. Risansi Industries Ltd., also remains periodically attested by visiting of Central Excise Officer. The removal of the machinery in May 1999 to new premises had also been intimated to the Central Excise Officer by the assessee. The production of rubber parts in that ....