9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2009 (9) TMI 540X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty on inputs like PV and texturised yarn. The Department found that in certain cases that the credit has been taken based on invoices which were received at dates later than dates of receipt of the goods; that, in some cases, the invoices have been received from certain registered dealers and the goods have come either from the manufacturer or other registered dealers; that there was mis-match between the goods received and the duty paying documents. On the above mentioned grounds, the original authority demanded duty of Rs. 78,864/- along with interest; he imposed equal amount as penalty under Section 11AC on the appellant company; he also imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under Rule 13 on the appellant company. He also imposed penalty of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pheld the order of the original authority with the following findings :- "8. I have carefully gone through the case records & submissions made by the appellants in their appeal memo. I find that the issue involved in these appeals are whether the goods can arrive separately from the invoices and whether taking credit of Cenvat in such cases is justified or not. In this connection, the main contention of the appellants is that of bonafide mistake and lack of knowledge with no intention to avail/utilise wrong credit as there was sufficient balance in their RG 23A Pt.II account and that the only irregularity is regarding taking a credit earlier than the arrival of invoices. 9. The point to be noted here is that the goods arrived on a particu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds on which credit has been taken has been admittedly received under kaccha challans. The need for issue of goods by the supplier under kaccha challans cannot be appreciated especially when credit was to be taken by the appellants. There is failure on the part of the appellant company in linking the duty paying documents to the goods received. Therefore, the denial of credit and the order for recovery of interest are justified. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty imposed under Section 11AC is also justified. However, I hold that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, a separate penalty under Rule 13 on the appellant company is not warranted. Similarly, no specific evidence about the Director's personal kno ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
