9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 201X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eceipt of input and use thereof in production is of no help to them. Even if it is accepted that Appellant have received the input, since it has no linkage with duty payment by the manufacturer the credit on fake invoices cannot be allowed. Penalty u/s 11 AC read with Rule 15 of CCR, 2004 - Held that: - M/s. Mohit Ispat Ltd. indulged themselves in fraudulently availing Cenvat Credit. Therefore the proviso of section 11A is clearly invokable consequently section 11 AC which has almost same ingredients as in proviso, the penalty was rightly imposed. Personal penalty on the Appellants namely Shri Harshvardhan, Director and Shri Dayanand Shenai, General Manager of M/s Mohit Ispat Ltd. - Held that: - the penalty on these Appellants were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s were issued by M/s Dhan Laxmi Steel without supply of goods. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand against M/s Mohit Ispat Ltd. and imposed penalties of equal amount of duty on the Appellant company and a personal penalty under Rule 26 (2) (ii) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 was also imposed upon Shri Harshvardhan Mittal, Director of M/s Mohit Ispat Ltd. and Shri Dyanand Shenai, General Manager (Accounts and Finance) of Mohit Ispat Ltd. and Shri Ashish Agrawal Proprietor of M/s Dhan Laxmi Steel. Being aggrieved by the Order-in Original M/s Mohit Ispat Ltd., Shri Harshvardhan and Shri Dayanand Shenai filed appeals before Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the order of Original Adjudicating Authority and disallowed the appeals. There ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... L.T. 374 (Guj.)] (ii) SMI Electrowire Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex., Delhi [2015 (322) E.L.T.] (P H) (iii) Shakti Steel Rolling Mills Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Chandigarh [2014 (304) E.L.T. 108] (Tri.) (iv) Bird Audio Electronis Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi [2013 (293) E.L.T. 314] (Tri.) (v) Luxmi Metals Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-II [2013 (293) E.L.T. 314] (Tri.) As regard imposition of penalty, he submits that even though there is lapse on the part of supplier and there is no mala fide on the part of Appellant, penalty under Section 11 AC / Rule 15 cannot be imposed on Appellant. He further submits that Appellant have deposited the entire Cenvat Credit amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the impugned order. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the records. I find that the fraud committed by the supplier M/s Dhanlaxmi Steels, Raipur in as much as they issued fake invoices without receipt of duty paid goods has been established on the following counts: (i) verification of the dealers premises located in Raipur, MP showed that the dealer had stopped operations during the relevant period: (ii) details given about the manufacturers supplying the ore to the dealers were found to be wrong- the manufacturers listed were found to be non existent; (iii) the dealers invoices itself failed to indicate cross references, to the entries from RG 23D registers required to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... input and use thereof in production is of no help to them. Even if it is accepted that Appellant have received the input, since it has no linkage with duty payment by the manufacturer the credit on fake invoices cannot be allowed. As per my above observation, I am fully in concurrence with the view taken by both the lower authorities in holding that Appellant have wrongly availed the Cenvat Credit. 4.2. As regard the submission of Ld. Counsel regarding imposition of penalty under section 11 AC read with Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. I find that as discussed above M/s. Mohit Ispat Ltd. indulged themselves in fraudulently availing Cenvat Credit. Therefore the proviso of section 11A is clearly invokable consequently section 11 AC w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
