M\/s. Hinduja Foundries Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Central Excise
2018 (7) TMI 610 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 9-7-2018
Appeal No. E\/40354\/2018 – Final Order No. 41953 \/ 2018
Central Excise
Hon'ble Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member ( Judicial )
\nShri M. Kannan, Advocate for the Appellant
\nShri R. Subramaniam, AC (AR) for the Respondent
\nORDER
\nBrief facts are that the appellants are engaged in manufacture of cast articles of iron and aluminium. They purchased three machineries (capital goods) in the year 1996 – 1997. In 2005, they cleared those capital goods to M\/s. Shanthi Casting Works, Coimbatore which is their job worker under returnable delivery challans along with excise in<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n show cause notice was issued to the appellant for recovery of the credit to the tune of Rs. 5,92,946\/- along with interest and for imposing penalties. After due process of law, the original authority confirmed the demand, interest and imposed penalties. In appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the same. Hence this appeal. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ter hearing the submissions and perusing the records, it is brought out that the appellants after shifting the capital goods to their job worker in 2005 has issued a returnable delivery challan with central excise invoice and also paid duty. Thereafter in 2011, though invoices were issued showing that the capital goods were turned to the appellant's factory, they have not been actually returned. The only explanation given by the appellant is that the documents evidencing that the goods have been returned is not traceable. Such a flimsy explanation is not acceptable. On the whole, it is seen that the demand raised requires no interference. The appellant has not been able to explain how and why they have availed such excess wrongful credit. I<\/p>\n = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s. Hinduja Foundries Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central ExciseCentral Excise2018 (7) TMI 610 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMICESTAT CHENNAI – ATDated:- 9-7-2018Appeal No. E\/40354\/2018 – Final Order No. 41953 \/ 2018Central ExciseHon'ble Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member ( Judicial ) Shri M. Kannan, Advocate for the Appellant Shri R. Subramaniam, AC (AR) for … Continue reading “M\/s. Hinduja Foundries Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-12558","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12558","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=12558"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12558\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=12558"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=12558"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=12558"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n2. On behalf of the appellant, ld. counsel Shri M. Kannan submitted that when the capital goods were returned to the appellant's factory by the job worker, the goods were actually returned but the documents evidencing such return of goods is not traceable. He prayed that the whole issue arises out of an error in accounting and therefore may be condoned.
\n3. The ld. AR Shri R. Subramaniam supported the findings in the impu<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n