9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 451X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceived. According to the Revenue, the appellant had placed orders with on M/s. Shakthi Enterprises based in Rajasthan for supply of copper rods who in turn claimed to have received the same from a company M/s. Matiz Metal Pvt. Ltd. located in Meghalaya. On verification of the records and investigations conducted, it was found that M/s. Matiz Metal Pvt. Ltd. had not manufactured nor did they supply. The conclusions are on the basis of documents verified with Sales Tax Department of Meghalaya, records of M/s. Matiz Metal Pvt. Ltd., statements of the proprietor of M/s. Shakthi enterprises and the fact that transporters were either to be non-existent or the vehicles were incapable of transporting the goods. 2. The learned counsel for the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Rule 25 of CENVAT Credit Rules or not. First of all, I am not convinced that appellant is entitled transfer CENVAT credit taken without receipt of goods but only on the basis of invoices. This is in view of the fact that there are enough evidences available to show that M/s. Matiz Metal Pvt. Ltd. had not supplied the goods to M/s. Shakthi Enterprises and M/s. Shakthi Enterprises in turn had not supplied the goods to the appellant. The appellant had not chosen to seek cross-examination of both the parties even though their statements were relied upon. Moreover, the appellant has also not rebutted the evidences collected by the Revenue showing that vehicles were either non-existent or transporters fictitious. That being the case, this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ingly, the impugned order as regards demand of duty is set aside and penalty under Rule 25 is reduced to Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only). It is made clear that other than penalty of Rs.20,000/- under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, there is no other penalty on the appellant-company. 4. There is also another appeal filed by the Managing Director of the appellant. It was the submission of the appellant right from the original adjudication stage that no show-cause notice had been issued to him and therefore no penalty could have been imposed. Ongoing through the records, I find that this is factually correct. Under these circumstances, there cannot be any penalty on the Managing Director in the absence of a show-cause notice having ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
