9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (4) TMI 750X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gs Pvt. Ltd. and Jyoti Concast Steel Ltd. are manufacturers of final product who had availed Cenvat Credit on the basis of documents issued by the registered dealers. 3. Shri Vikram Kakaria, learned Advocate appeared on behalf of Chandigarh Steel Corporation and M/s. Rachna Steel Corporation. Shri Gagan Kohli, learned Advocate appeared on behalf of M/s. Jyoti Concast Steel Ltd. None appeared on behalf of other respondents. 4. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that M/s. Eastern Steel & Agro Industries, Mandi Gobindgarh are registered with Central Excise authorities as manufacturer of Washer and Tikki, etc. They cleared scrap of iron & steel on payment of duty under Central Excise invoices to various dealers and manufa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mits that the original authority disallowed the credit availed by the manufacturer of input i.e. M/s. Eastern Steel & Agro Industries as well as imposed penalty for wrong availment of credit by the dealers and manufacturers of final product. He further submits that the registered dealers only issued the invoice without any material and, therefore, penalties imposed upon them are justified. He also submits that the manufacturer of final product availed credit without receiving the goods on the basis of bogus invoices. 6. Learned Advocate on behalf of the respondents, submit that on the same set of facts another manufacturer of final product i.e. M/s. DCM Engg. Products availed credit on the basis of invoices issued by the same register ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... how that invoices issued by the manufacturer of inputs are invalid. The original authority observed that the manufacturer of input might have received the scrap along with invoices but not the scrap which was generated in their factory premises. Thus, the allegation against the respondents that scrap along with invoices was not received by the manufacturer of the final product is not sustainable. The main contention of the learned D.R. that the registered dealer issued the invoice without receiving the goods, is without any basis. I have also noticed that other show cause notices were issued on the same facts to the manufacturer of final product M/s. DCM Engg. Products. The Division Bench of the Tribunal vide Final Order No. 43/05-B dated 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Central Excise, Chandigarh v. Malerkotla Steels & Alloys (P) Ltd., 2003 (156) E.L.T. 932. 3. Therefore, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the same is upheld. The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed." 8. In the present case I do not find any material to show that duty paid by the manufacturer of inputs were declared improper. In any event, following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. DCM Engg. Products (supra), I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) rightly set aside the penalty on the registered dealers and the manufacturer of final product. Accordingly, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). All the appeals filed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
