2018 (12) TMI 781 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI – CENVAT Credit – inputs – there was variation in the product description in the dealers invoice and the Material Inward Notes (MIN) maintained by the appellant – Held that:- There is no different central excise duty with regard to CI borings and waste and scrap (other). On such score, I cannot find any reason for the appellant to have any intention to avail fraudulent credit. The very variation in the description of the goods in the dealers invoice as well as the material inward notes cannot be a ground for alleging that the appellant has availed fraudulent credit. There is no allegation with respect to the difference in quantity of the goods received. It is only with regard to the variation in the description of the goods in the dealers invoice.
–
Demand cannot sustain – appeal allowed – decided in favor of appellant. – Appeal No. E/329/2012 – Final Order No. 43074/2018 – Dated:- 11-12-2018 – Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) Shri
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
the department was of the view that the appellant had availed fraudulent credit of inputs. Show cause notice was issued for demanding an amount of ₹ 2,78,814/- and also proposing to impose equal penalty under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. After due process of law, the original authority confirmed the demand, interest and penalties. In appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the same. Hence this appeal. 2. On behalf of the appellant, ld. consultant Shri R. Balagopal submitted that the demand has been raised by the department alleging that there is difference in the description of goods in the dealer s invoices and the MIN. The appellant had placed purchase order for CI borings and the dealer had supplied CI borings. Instead of noting in the dealer s invoice the goods as CI borings, the dealer had mentioned the goods as waste and scrap. He argued that CI borings fall within the very same Tariff heading as of waste and scrap and there is no separate Tariff heading for
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
had availed fraudulent credit. He prayed that the impugned order may be set aside. 3. The ld. AR Shri L. Nandakumar supported the findings in the impugned order. He relied upon the statement of Shri Selva Lakshmanan and argued that the said person had deposed that they have not supplied the goods as mentioned in the invoice. That itself would show that the appellant has availed fraudulent credit. The demand therefore confirmed is legal and proper. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The issue is with regard to 24 invoices out of the 47 invoices that is related to the transaction by M/s. Kovai Scrap Traders. The appellant has furnished the details of such invoices. The goods are mentioned as waste and scrap. It is also submitted by the appellant that though they had placed purchase order for CI borings, the supplier / dealer had mentioned the goods in the invoices as waste and scrap . In common parlance, CI borings would fall under waste and scrap and the Tariff heading 72044900 would apply for CI
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =