Case Law Details
Wimplast Ltd. Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmadabad)
In this case demand was made by the Revenue of differential Cenvat amount, considering the inputs removed as such is out of the current purchase, therefore, there is difference of duty. However, on perusal of the running stock account, I find that the quantity removed from time to time was carried forward from the old stock and the stock balance of the input was much more than the quantity cleared by the appellant. Therefore, if FIFO system is applied then the removal of input must be considered from the old stock in such a position it cannot be contented that the appellant have cleared the input as such for the current purchases. In absence of any direct co-relation with the current purchases the demand cannot be sustained.
In This type of transaction from the running stock the FIFO system has to be applied and accordingly last available stock should be considered as if such goods was removed from the stock. In view of this demand confirmed for the differential duty is not supported by any evidence. Hence, the impugned order is set aside appeal is allowed.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT JUDGEMENT
The brief facts of the case are that the appellant availed Cenvat Credit on inputs namely Plastic Granules. The Plastic Granules are used for the manufacture of Plastic Moulded Furniture. The appellant have also removed the input as such from time to time on payment of duty. The case of the department is that the duty so paid on the removal of inputs is lower than the Cenvat Credit on the input availed at the time of receipt of such Plastic Granules. Accordingly the demand of differential Cenvat amount was confirmed. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order upheld the demand. Therefore, the appellant filed the present appeal.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
