Full Judgment
2. Shri Biradar, learned counsel for the appellant, stresses the point that when the RT12 returns were assessed, the department cannot state that there has been willful evasion by the assessee. As against this, Shri R.K. Paradeshi, learned DR, strenuously argued that knowing full well that the final product was electric furnaces and the input was resistance wire, the appellant could not have utilised the same for the fan guards. Therefore he states that there is a misutilisation of the modvat credit. The observation of the Additional Commissioner that the word "verification" has been mentioned in RT12 has to be seen in the light of admitted circumstances that there has been a provisional assessment and that the provisions of Rule 9 and 49 has been followed.
The department has not placed on record any evidence of insistence of the point in terms of Rule 9 and 49. If that were to be so, if the case of the department is the provisional assessment the department ought to have put in a positive way when the assessment was finalised and only after definite final assessment notice of demand could have been issued. I am therefore the view that the stand taken by the adjudicating authority does not have any legs to stand. Hence accepting the case of the appellant, I allow the appeal, setting aside the impugned order.
3. Appeal stands allowed the consequential relief, if any, according to law.