9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (2) TMI 682X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed against the appellant-firm and penalties imposed on the appellant-firm as well as on Shri Manoj Garg and Shri Deepak Yadav vide the Impugned Order-in-Original dated 26-2-2008 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise Delhi -1. 1.1 The facts of the case leading to these appeals are, in brief, as under :- 1.1.1 The appellants have a manufacturing unit in Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-I, Naraina Industrial Estate, Delhi-28 for manufacture of readymade garments (RMG) of Knitted as well as Woven fabrics, with or without embroidery, liable to Central Excise duty under Tariff Heading 5406, 6001, 6101 and 6201 of the Central Excise Tariff. They were also availing of the Cenvat credit facility available under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. They ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Textiles, (2) Nanalal Polyster Pvt. Ltd., (3) Chandrika Textiles, (4) Shree Navneet Textiles, (5) Palaj Fabrics, (6) Rajen Textiles, (7) Shivdeep Fashion Pvt. Ltd. and, (8) Rukshmani Textiles. The Asst. Commissioner, Central Excise, Division-V, Surat vide letter dated 7-10-05 and 9-12-05 informed that none of the above manufacturers had supplied any material to the appellant-firm and also forwarded copies of the letters given by the above mentioned manufacturers of Surat. 1.1.3 Enquiry was thereafter made with Shri Manoj Garg and Shri Deepak Yadav, partners of the appellant firm. Shri Deepak Yadav in his statement dated 17-4-06 stated that he is only an employee of the appellant firm headed by Shri Manoj Garg and that entire work of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... well as his partners are liable for penalty. 1.1.5 After issue of show-cause-notice and hearing the appellants, the Commissioner vide the impugned order held that the availed Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 1,65,24,493/- is to be non est and reversed from the Cenvat credit Account and - (a) Confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 1,71,02,252/- under Section 11A(1) of Central Excise Act, 1944 along with interest on it at the applicable rate as per the provisions of section 11AB against the applicant firm, (b) imposed penalty of Rs. 1,71,02,252/- on the appellant firm under section 11AC of Central Excise Act read with Rule 25(1) of Central Excise Rules, 2002, and (c) imposed penalty of Rs. 5.00 Lakhs on Shri Manoj Garg, Partner and Rs. 2.00 Lakhs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nalties may please be waived for admitting these appeals. He was accordingly directed by the Bench to deposit the admitted amount of Rs. 7.50 Lakhs by 17-1-09 and produce the challan at the time of hearing on 21-1-09. 2.1.1 When this case was listed for hearing on 21-1-09, Shri Hari Shankar, Advocate, reported that the appellant have deposited an amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- and pleaded that the pre-deposit of the remaining amount of duty demand and penalty may be waived. 2.2 Shri K.K. Goel, Jt. CDR, the ld. DR for the Revenue pleaded that while the letters dated 7-10-05 and 9-12-05 of the Asstt. Commissioner, Central Excise, Division-V, Surat and the letters issued by the manufacturers denying having sent any material to the appellant-firm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ainst the appellant-firm - duty demand of Rs. 7,53,322/- is in respect of clearances of fabrics in July, 2005, to M/s. Parental Creations Pvt. Ltd. under invoice No. 1-8 all dated 1-7-05 and there is no dispute about the fact that duty in respect of these clearances has not been paid. The appellant have deposited an amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- towards the duty liability. The other component of the duty demand is Rs. 1,63,48,930/-, the basis of which is that this duty had been paid by the appellant by utilising Cenvat credit which has been taken in a fraudulent manner without actually receiving any material. The Department s case in respect of this allegation is based on the reports dated 7-10-05 and 9-12-05 of the Asstt. Commissioner, Central ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stice, the impugned order is not sustainable, the same is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner for de novo adjudication after supplying the following documents to the appellant and granting personal hearing :- (a) The letters dated 7-10-2005 and 9-12-05 of the Asstt. Commissioner, Central Excise, Division-V, Surat. (b) The letters issued by the manufacturers denying selling of any material to the appellant. 5. In view of the huge amount of revenue involved, we direct the Commissioner to supply the documents by 15th Feb., 2009. The appellants shall submit their reply by 28th Feb., 2009 and thereafter the Commissioner must adjudicate this matter by 31st March, 2009. The stay applications as well as the appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
