9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 795X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation in respect of M/s. Pasondia Steel, it had been found that during the period of dispute, there was no manufacturing activity in their factory and only bogus invoices had been issued to a number of dealer including M/s. Steel - Prima facie the invoices issued by the appellant were bogus invoices - Following V. K. ENTERPRISES Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., PANCHKULA [2009 (9) TMI 362 - CESTAT, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stage dealer dealing in steel items. During 2004-2005 they had issued certain invoices regarding supply of C.R. Strip to M/s. Rasandik Engineering Industries India Ltd. on the basis of which M/s. Rasandik have taken the Cenvat Credit of Rs. 98,813/-. Subsequent enquiry revealed that M/s. Nidhi Enterprises as a second stage dealer had procured these invoices from first stage dealer M/s. Ayushi Stee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty of Rs.90,000/- on appellant M/s. Nidhi Enterprises under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules,2002. This order of Deputy Commissioner was upheld by Commissioner (Appeals) vide order-in-appeal dt. 27.11.12 against which this appeal has been filed along with stay application. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order relied upon the judgment of Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . DR, opposed the stay application by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and relied upon the judgment of Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of V. K. Enterprises (Supra). 5. I have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. Prima facie when the appellant claim to have purchased the CR Strips, in question, from M/s. Ayushi Steel who, in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e goods, cannot say that he was not a person concerned with selling of the goods and merely issued invoices or that he did not contravene any provision relating to evasion of duty. In view of this, this is not case for total waiver. The appellant, therefore, are directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 20,000/- within a period of 4 weeks from the date of this order. On deposit on this amount within th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
