2016 (9) TMI 364

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... denied to the appellant. Imposition of penalty - Held that:- in the light of decisions of the Tribunal in the case of Western India Paints and Colour Co.(P)-vs.- Commr. Of C.Ex., Chennai [2002 (1) TMI 166 - CEGAT, CHENNAI] and in the case of Varalakshmi Exports vs.-Commr. Of Cus.(Seaport-Export), Chennai [2013 (12) TMI 1301 - CESTAT CHENNAI] that in remand proceedings penalty cannot be enhanced when department did not file any appeal against the first adjudication order where a penalty of ₹ 2.5 lakh was imposed. However, in the interest of justice it is ordered that a penalty of ₹ 1.00 lakh (one lakh) upon the appellant will meet the ends of justice in the present proceedings. Accordingly penalty imposed upon the appellant i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... was argued by Learned Consultant that department has made out a case that appellant took credit on documents, received from registered dealer M/s. Ram Kumar Kamal Kumar, M/s. Saraswati Enterprises, Shree Shyam Re-rolling Mills and Shree Behariji etc., without receipt of any inputs. That only an amount of ₹ 2,47,844/- can be held to be inadmissible as per the statement dt.23.01.1996 of Shree Kamal Kumar Aggarwal partner of M/s. Ram Kumar Kamal Kumar wherein he has accepted that inputs are not sent. That there is no statement of the appellant that they have not received inputs alongwith the credit taking documents. That no quantification of input credit taken, with respect to other documents and RG-23 Part-II register has been done by t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... seeking condonation is that appeal filed by the Revenue was received in time but the same got misplaced. The reason explaining delay is not justified and are rejected. 6. On the issue of denial of cenvat credit appellant argued that no quantification of inadmissible credit has been done in the show cause notice by making reference to invoices and entries made in RG-23A Part-II. It is also appellants case that only a credit of ₹ 2,47,844/- can be denied in view of the statement of partner of M/s. Ram Kumar Kamal Kumar. It is observed from the case records that for other entries no statement is available that appellant has not received inputs and the duty paying documents. It is further observed from the case records that no statem .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X