9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (8) TMI 950X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent. ORDER Duty of Rs. 18,45,716/- (Rupees eighteen lakhs forty-five thousand seven hundred and sixteen only) stands confirmed against the appellants by denying them the benefit of Modvat credit availed by them during the period 15-3-03 to 11-7-05 on the basis of the invoices issued by the registered dealers. The Revenue s stand is that as per the investigations conducted by them and the e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the goods to the appellant M/s. Vipul Copper Pvt. Ltd. and could not have passed the duty burden to them. 4. On the other hand, it is the appellants, contention that they have received the goods from the said dealers, who have been paid by an account payee cheques and the said goods stand entered by them in their RG 23A Part-I register, with credit entries in RG 23A Part-II registers. The same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the said appellant from the dealers under the cover of invoices showing duty payment from his RG23D register. The said dealer has also been paid vide account payee cheques. There is no statement of any transporter or any other person indicating that the goods have not been transported from the dealer s premises to the said appellant s premises. As such the fact that the dealer has not receive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it of duty and penalty in respect of M/s. Vipul Copper Pvt. Ltd. 7. As regards the penalties imposed upon the other appellants in terms of the Provisions of Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, the appellants contended that even as per the Revenue s own case the goods were not transported or sold in which case they cannot be confiscated and as per the law declared by the Larger Bench in the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
