9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 587X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Jyoti Structures Ltd. In my considered view, when the challan issued by the appellant indicates the goods as non-excisable goods, cannot become an excisable goods on which payment made. There is no explanation put forth by the appellant on this specific point. In the considered view the findings recorded by the first appellate authority as reproduced herein above clearly indicates that the appellant did not supply the inputs as mentioned in the duty paying documents. In view of the above find that both the appellants have not made out any case in their favour. The main appellant being a Pvt. Ltd. has been penalized under Rule 26(2) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and the penalty needs to be upheld, while the 2nd appellant Shri Lalit Inde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had issued invoices and filed weigh bridge slips along with tax invoices. He would submit that out of entire transactions only nine transactions were doubted by the lower authorities. He would submit that the statements relied upon by both the lower authorities do not implicate the appellants as having supplied market scrap. He would rely upon the statements of Shri Shivgovind Pandey, Director of M/s. Indian Steel and M/s. Jai Ambe Multi Trade Pvt. Ltd. and Shri Lalit Inderchand Baliya, Director of M/s. MTC Business Pvt. Ltd. to submit that the records very clearly indicate that they had supplied the material based upon the visual inspection. 5. Learned D.R. on the other hand would draw my attention to the statements of the very same per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icate that the appellants are a repeated offender, in which case imposition of maximum penalty was justified. Looking into the circumstances of the case and the fact that only nine consignments are involved, the amount of penalty imposed of the highest limit as laid down under Rule 26(2) of C.E. Rules is excessive and needs to be reconsidered. It can be seen from the above reproduced findings of the first appellate authority, M/s. Super Craft who were recipients of the goods/inputs supplied by the main appellant herein, has reversed the Cenvat credit availed on the transactions. I find that the learned Counsel has relied upon various records like tax invoices are also not instilling any confidence that the appellant had supplied the sam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
