9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 608X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n which during the period of dispute i.e. the period from 2007 - 2011 they were procuring from M/s Jagruti Resins (P) Ltd., a registered dealer and M/s Shree Sai International, Faridabad a registered dealer (second stage). Shri Arvind Kumar Doshi is the C.E.O. of M/s Jagruti Resins (P) Ltd., and Awadh Pratap Narayan Singh is C.E.O. of M/s Shree Sai International. Jitender Kumar is the authorised signatory of M/s Jagruti Resins (P) Ltd. During the period of dispute M/s Dhiman Engineering Corporation claimed to have been received ABS resin either from M/s Jagruti Resins (P) Ltd. under their M/s Jagruti Resins invoices or from M/s Shree Sai International, a second stage registered dealer. The disputed amount of cenvat credit which is sought to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 01.10.2012 confirmed the cenvat credit demand of Rs. 22,50,268/- against M/s Dhiman Engineering Corporation alongwith interest and while imposing penalty of equal amount on them under Section 11AC, imposed penalty, on other noticees as under:- i) Haripal Dhiman, Prop. M/s Dhiman Engg. Rs. 10 lakhs ii) M/s Jagruti Resins (P) Ltd. Rs.22,50,262/- iii) Arvind K. Doshi, CEO Rs. 10 lakhs iv) Jitender Kumar, Auth. Signatory Rs. 2 lakhs v) M/s Shree Sai Intl. Rs. 40,515/- vi) Awadh Pratap Narayan Singh, CEO Rs. 40,515/- The above penalties was imposed under Rule 26(2) of Central Excise Rules. 1.2. On appeals being filed against the above order before the Commissioner (Appeals) order, the order of Additional Commissioner, was upheld ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a vehicle has loaded the goods much more than its capacity, it cannot be concluded that the goods loaded therein has not been transported; that except for a few cases of the goods transported by HR38F 3612 and HR55C- 5022 where the total cenvat credit demand involved is Rs. 30,000/-, in the remaining case there is no evidence in support of the department's allegation that no goods have been transported; that just because of the same discrepancies in the records maintained by the Drivers or the goods loaded being more than the capacity of the vehicle, it cannot be concluded that the goods covered under the invoices have not been transported, that the entire case of the department is without any basis, that the appellant have strong prima-fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompany are not involved in the present group of appeals. 6. I have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the record. While prima facie in view of the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) in para 26 of the impugned order, it appears that M/s Jagruti Resins (P) Ltd., may have issued bogus invoices showing transportation of the goods in the vehicle of M/s Sanjay Tempo Transport Co. I find that so far as the present appellant is concerned, prima facie the vehicle of this transport company are not involved. However, in the present group of appeals there are two transporters, the owners of vehicle No. HR55 5022 and HR-38F-3612 who have categorically stated that they have not transported the goods of M/s Jagruti Resins (P) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
