9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 764X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Mohanty, Member (Judicial) And Hon ble Mr. B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Mr. Rupendra Singh Mr. M. Shaharan, (Advocates) for the Appellant Mr. H.C. Saini, DR for the Respondent ORDER Per S. K. Mohanty These appeals are directed against the impugned order dated 25.08.2014 passed by the ld. Commissioner, Customs, Central Excise Service Tax, Bhopal. Vide the impugned order, the ld. adjudicating authority has dropped the Duty demand of ₹ 1,27,29,183/- against the assessee-appellant M/s Manish Industries. However, cenvat credit of ₹ 18,85,971/- was disallowed and equal amount of penalty was imposed on it under Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Further, demand of ₹ 72,02,038/- was also confirmed against the assessee-appellant along with imposition of equivalent amount of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Besides, the impugned order has also imposed penalties on the other appellants namely, Shri Rajneesh Agarwal, Shri Mukesh Sangla and M/s AVM Brothers under Rule 26 of rules. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order, the above appellants have filed appeals bef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icles mentioned in the invoices for transportation of the subject goods, were in fact trucks, used for transportation of the impugned goods. In support of his above submissions, he has referred to and relied upon various decisions of the Tribunal, to state that confirmed duty demand arising out of the same investigation, were set aside by the Tribunal against those appellants. 5. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for Revenue has reiterated the findings recorded in the impugned order, to support the adjudged demands confirmed in the impugned order, against the appellants. In case of revenue s appeal, he has relied upon the investigation conducted by the officers of the Department. 6. Heard both sides and perused the records. 7. We find that the Revenue is in appeal against setting aside of demand of ₹ 1,27,29,183/- on the ground that assessee-appellant had availed said credit fraudulently without receipt of goods. Reliance was placed upon the statement of employees of M/s Signet Overseas Ltd. and records maintained by said company and also statement of transporter Shri Vishal Agarwal. Shri Vishal Agarwal in his statement has stated that the bilty for transportation were i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... GL Poshak Corporation Vs. CCE, Hyderabad 2002 (140) ELT 187 (TRI), CCE, Ludhiana Vs. Parmathma Jatinder Singh Alloys Pvt. Ltd. 2011 (266) ELT 67 (TRI DEL). We also find that the following cases arising out of same investigation has already been decided by the Tribunal in the assessee s favour : (i) M/s Askas Plastics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Indore Final Order No. 54026/16 dt. 20.06.2016 (ii) CCE ST, Indore Vs. M/s Kisan Extrusions Final Order No. 50982 50985/2016/SM dt. 15.02.2016 (iii) CCE, Indore Vs. Parag Pentachem M/s Rajshree Plastics Final Order No. 51910 51915/2015/SM dt. 17.06.2015 (iv) M/s Tulsi Extrusions Vs. CCE, Nashik Final Order No. A/2462 2464/15/SM dt. 30.07.2015 8. In view of the above decisions of the Tribunal, we are of the view that there is no merits in the appeal filed by the Revenue. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. 9. Further, a demand of ₹ 18,85,971/- was confirmed against the assessee-appellant on the ground that the vehicle shown to have transported the goods were not capable of such transportation being tankers, tempos, auto rickshaw and in two cases, were moped and scooter. The assessee-appellant had submitted a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SIGNMENT TIME MP09KA3018 TANKER TRUCK AT CONSIGNMENT TIME MP09KA3018 TANKER TRUCK AT CONSIGNMENT TIME MP09KA3018 TANKER TRUCK AT CONSIGNMENT TIME MP09KA3018 TANKER TRUCK AT CONSIGNMENT TIME MP09KA3018 TANKER TRUCK AT CONSIGNMENT TIME MP09KA3018 TANKER TRUCK AT CONSIGNMENT TIME MP0KA3018 TANKER TRUCK AT CONSIGNMENT TIME MP0KA3018 TANKER TRUCK AT CONSIGNMENT TIME MP09KC1615 TANKER TRUCK AT CONSIGNMENT TIME MP09KC1615 TANKER TRUCK AT CONSIGNMENT TIME MP09KC3687 TANKER TRUCK AT CONSIGNMENT TIME 10. The assessee-appellant also submitted that some of the vehicles were trucks, which were later on con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ELT 218 (P H), EM ESS Electricals Vs. CCE, Delhi 2003 (159) ELT 730 (TRI), Adhunik Ferro Alloys Ltd. Vs. CCE, Chandigarh 2009 (223) ELT 131 (TRI) and C.C.E., Ludhiana Vs. Parmatma Singh Jatinder Singh Alloys P. Ltd., 2012 (25) S.T.R. 281 (Tri. - Del.). We therefore hold that credit cannot be denied to the assessee-appellant. 11. Another demand of ₹ 72,02,038/- has been made against the assessee-appellant on the ground of clearances of raw material and finished goods to M/s AVM Brothers and others. Reliance has been placed upon the transit passes of M/s Dashmesh Road lines, which show the transit movement of goods and in some cases, computer printout of page no. 17 of data seized from premises of the assessee-appellant. The Ld. Counsel has referred to the statement of Shri Sushil Motwani, which has been relied upon in the SCN, wherein he had stated that he was not concerned with maintaining the details nor knew anything about such details. He had stated that Shri Brijesh Tripathi and Shri P.K. Indoria were concerned with maintaining of records. That in absence of any knowledge and investigation from the author of the computer data relied upon by the Revenue, no demand can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
