9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 779X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to various dealers and manufacturers. The registered dealers, the respondents herein, took the stand before the Adjudicating Authority that they supplied the material to M/s DCM Engineering Products. Proceedings were initiated against M/s DCM Engineering Products on the ground that M/s DCM Engineering Product availed the credit without receiving the inputs. The proceedings against M/s DCM Engineering Products was dropped by the Adjudicating Authority. - This fact was not disputed by the Adjudicating Authority.- No reason to interfere with impugned order - Decided against Revenue. - E/1718-1720,1749,1746-1748/2006, E/CROSS/232/2006 - Final Order Nos. A/51112-51118/2015-EX(DB) - Dated:- 19-1-2015 - P K Das, Member (J) And P S Pruthi, Mem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epresentative for the Revenue submits that it was found during the investigation that there was no proper plant and machinery, labour, electricity consumed for manufacturing of huge quantity of Iron and Steel produced by the said unit. He particularly drew the attention of the Bench to the relevant portion of the impugned order in the case of M/s B.D. Gupta Sons. He also submits that the Authorised Signatory of the said unit is directly involved on issue of Modvatable invoices without supplying the goods, which has been accepted by him in his statement. 5. On the other hand, the ld.Advocates for the Respondents submit that the none of the registered dealers had admitted the alleged offence. It is submitted that the registered dealers ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the inputs. The proceedings against M/s DCM Engineering Products was dropped by the Adjudicating Authority. This fact was not disputed by the Adjudicating Authority. In the instant case, the relevant findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) are reproduced below:- I have carefully examined the case records including the Appellants submissions made in writing and at the time of personal hearing and observe that the allegation leveled by the Department is that the Appellants had passed on credit without actual receipt of inputs. But the contention of the Appellants are that the transaction of M/s Vipul Steel Agro Industries (VSAI) with the Appellants has not been challenged in the Show Cause Notice in any manner as done in the case of M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tters are that on identical issue in respect of imposition of penalty on the registered dealers, the Hon'ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of CCE Chandigarh-I Vs M/s Dinesh Kumar, Sudhir Kumar by judgment dt.19.05.2014, in CEA No.76 of 2011 (O M) rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue. In that case, the question of law was whether setting aside penalty on the registered dealers, who have facilitated others in taking fraudulent CENVAT Credit by issuing invoices without actual supply of goods, on the ground that the sub-rule 2 to Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 was inserted only w.e.f. 1.3.2007 vide Notification No.8/2007-CE(NT), dt.1.3.2007 is legally correct especially when such penalty was imposable under Rule 26 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
