HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LTD. Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against order -in -appeal No. 610 -CE/APPL/ALLD/2004 dt. 17.8.04 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Allahabad, upholding the order -in -original No. MP(Dem -1/2003) 18/04 dt. 29.3.04 passed by Jt. Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad confirming Cenvat credit demand of Rs. 18,88,869/ - alongwith interest against the Appellant under Rule 57I(1)(ii)/57AH of Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11A and 11AB of Central Excise Act, 1944/Rule 57I(5) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and imposing penalty of equal amount on the Appellant under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944/Rule 57I(4) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Aluminium and products thereof. For manufacture of Aluminium and its products, a number of duty paid inputs are procured by the Appellant on which Cenvat credit is taken. The dispute in this case is about C.P. Coke, Hard Pitch, Silicon Metal, Furnace oil and Light Diesel Oil received during the period from April'96 to March'2000. These inputs on being received by the Appellants' factory are weighed by the Appellant on their weighing scales and the record is kept of the quantity received and the difference, if any, between the quantity mentioned in the invoices and the quantity ascertained on receipt in the factory. The Jurisdictional Central Excise Officers, in the course of checking of Central Excise records of the Appellant, compared the quantity of the inputs received as mentioned in the invoices; with the quantity received in the factory, as mentioned in the Appellant's record and on this basis it has been alleged that the Appellant during the period from April'96 to March'2000 have taken Cenvat credit to the tune of Rs. 18,88,869/ - on the inputs which had not been received. It is on this basis that after issue of show cause notice, the Jt. Commissioner vide order -in -original dt. 29.3.04 confirmed Cenvat credit demand of Rs. 18,88,869/ - along with interest against the Appellant and besides this, imposed penalty of equal amount. The appeal filed by the Appellant before the Commissioner (Appeals) was rejected vide impugned order -in -appeal dt. 17.8.04. It is against this order that the present appeal has been filed.

(2.) Heard both the sides.

(3.) In view of the above discussion, we hold that the impugned order is not sustainable. The same is set aside and the appeal is allowed.