9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 1110X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed as received by M/s. BEPL in the light of evidence regarding vehicle numbers / GRs. Further, there is nothing on record to indicate that Shri Arvind K Doshi, CEO of M/s. JRPL was instrumental in such activity. Hence, there is no justification for imposing penalty on Shri Doshi, and hence set aside. Appeal allowed in part. - Excise Appeal No. 53051 -53052 of 2014 - FINAL ORDER NO. 56417-56418 /2017 - Dated:- 4-9-2017 - Dr. Satish Chandra, President and Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Shri M P Gupta, Advocate for the Appellants Shri M R Sharma , DR for the Respondent ORDER Per: V. Padmanabhan: These appeals are filed against the impugned Orders-in-Original No. 115/2013-14 dated 26.02.2014. M/s. Bhansal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it amounting to ₹ 1,22,98,442/-. After due process of adjudication, the adjudicating authority upheld the demands on both grounds and also imposed penalties equal to the duty / cenvat. Further, a penalty of ₹ 1,22,98,442/- was also imposed on Arvind K Doshi, CEO of M/s. Jagruti Resins Pvt. Ltd. . 3. Aggrieved by the impugned orders, appeals have been filed by M/s. BEPL as well as M/s. JRPL. 4. With the above background, we heard Shri M P Gupta, learned Advocate for the appellants and Shri M R Sharma, learned DR for the Revenue. 5. At the outset, we consider the demand for Central Excise duty amounting to ₹ 2.98 crore. The demand for Central Excise duty of this amount has been confirmed by the adjudicating authorit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on goods received under sub-rule (1) at the rate applicable on the date of removal and on the value determined under sub-section (2) of section 3 or section 4 or section 4A of the Act, as the case may be. [ Explanation . - The amount paid under this sub-rule shall be allowed as CENVAT credit as if it was a duty paid by the manufacturer who removes the goods.] (3) If there is any difficulty in following the provisions of sub-rule (1) and sub-rule (2), the assessee may receive the goods for being re-made, refined, re-conditioned or for any other reason and may remove the goods subsequently subject to such conditions as may be specified by the Commissioner. *Explanation added vide Notification No. 17/2003-CE(NT) dated 13.3.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by M/s. JRPL. Cenvat credit amounting to ₹ 1.22 crores has been disallowed by the adjudicating authority on the ground that M/s. BEPL never received the said quantity of returned ABS. Investigation carried out by the Revenue revealed that goods claimed to be returned from M/s. JRCL was accompanied by GRs issued by M/s. Shiv Shakti Packers and Movers. The registration number of vehicles found in such GRs were found to be that of two wheelers, cars, light motor vehicles or non-existent motor vehicles. On the basis of such investigation, it has been alleged that M/s. BEPL never received the goods covered by 40 invoices and GRs. 10. The claim of M/s. BEPL in this regard is that correct registration number of vehicles through which the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o irrevocable presumption about the genuineness of goods transported and the documents covered by it. The logical conclusion which will be arrived at by any prudent man is that such goods covered by GRs were never received by the appellant M/s. BEPL. Consequently, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the adjudicating authority in ordering recovery of cenvat credit amounting to ₹ 1,22,98,442/- along with interest and imposition of penalty of equal amount. 12. The adjudicating authority has also imposed a penalty amounting to ₹ 1,22,98,442/- on Shri Arvind K Doshi, CEO of M/s. JRPL under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 13. This has been resisted in the appeal filed by Shri Doshi. It has been submitted on b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
