9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 960X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RRB Chemicals. Rather it is the Department's case that M/s. AMPL were receiving the consignments of G.P. sheets directly from ACCIL under the invoices of the RRB Chemicals. When the receipt of the goods by AMPL which are covered under the invoices issued by RRB Chemicals is not denied, it would not be correct to deny the Cenvat credit to M/s. AMPL and impose penalty on them as well as on M/s. RRB Chemicals. - Impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee. - E/51893/2014, E/58186 & 59299/2013 and E/51768/2014 - Final Order Nos. A/51447-51450/2015-EX(DB) - Dated:- 9-4-2015 - Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (T) and S.K. Mohanty, Member (J) Shri Rajesh Chibber, Advocate, for the Assessee. Shri M.S. Negi, (DR), for the Depa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cise registration as a registered dealer nor they have received the G.P. Sheets and as such, the consignments of G.P. Sheets sold by them were directly being supplied by ACCIL to AMPL, M/s. AMPL would not be eligible for Cenvat credit on the basis of the invoices issued by M/s. RRB Chemicals. It is on this basis that the Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 34-35/Comm/NOIDA/2013-14, dated 31-12-2013 has confirmed the Cenvat credit of ₹ 2,49,93,425/- against M/s. AMPL along with interest and while penalty of same amount has been imposed on AMPL, penalty of same amount has also been imposed on M/s. RRB. Chemicals. Against this order of the Commissioner, Appeal No. E/58186/2014 has been filed by M/s. AMPL and Appeal No. E/51893/2014 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... micals, it has not been denied that the goods covered under the invoices issued by RRB Chemicals to M/s. AMPL, had been received by AMPL and that just because the goods were supplied directly by ACCIL to M/s. AMPL under the invoices of M/s. RRB Chemicals, the Cenvat credit cannot be denied to M/s. AMPL. He also pleaded that in the circumstances of the case, there was no justification for imposition of penalty on M/s. RRB Chemicals. 5. Shri M.S. Negi, ld. Departmental Representative defended the impugned order by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner. He pleaded that while Shri Rakesh Mishra, Managing Director of M/s. RRB Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. in his statement given to the Central Excise Officers had stated that the consignments of G ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M/s. RRB Chemicals and there is no evidence that G.P. sheets were dispatched from the factory to the Apollo Metalex. It is not the department's case that AMPL did not receive the G.P. sheets which were covered by the invoices of M/s. RRB Chemicals as consignment agent. In these circumstances, it would not be correct to deny the Cenvat credit to M/s. AMPL and impose penalty on them as well as on M/s. RRB Chemicals. In view of this, we hold that the Order-in-Original No. 34-35/2013, dated 31-12-2013 denying the Cenvat credit to M/s. AMPL and imposing penalty on them as well as M/s. RRB Chemicals is not sustainable and the same has to be set aside. 8. In respect of the period w.e.f. the date on which M/s. RRB Chemicals obtained registr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
