9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 546X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rap from M/s. Ravi Steel Industries and payments towards said supplies was made through cheques/RTGS and same has been recorded in the ledger account of M/s. Ravi Steel Industries, Nagpur. It is established that respondent company has received the M.S. scrap, hence credit cannot be denied - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Appeal No. E/85272, 85273/17 E/CO-91037,91036/17 - A/85321-85322/2018 - Dated:- 20-2-2018 - Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) Shri Vivek Dwivedi, Asstt. Commr. (A.R.) for Department Shri D.R. Gadekar, Advocate for respondent ORDER The present appeals are directed against Order of the Commissioner(Appeals) whereby Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the demand of Cenvat credit, inte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, credit of specified duty paid on input is available only if input are received and used in the manufacture of excisable final product, but in this case Commissioner(appeals) agrees that duty has not been paid, do not agree to deny the credit as proposed in the show cause notice and upheld by Original authority. Accordingly, demand confirmed by the Original authority deserve to be maintained and also consequential penalty imposed on the director of the company for ₹ 10 lakhs to be upheld. 3. On the other hand, Shri. D.R. Gadekar, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent submits that entire case is based on RTO report in respect of some vehicle, according to which vehicles are not capable of transporting the goods. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t against the respondent is only on the basis of RTO report, according to which in some of the vehicles it was found that the said vehicles are not capable of transporting the goods. Except this I do not find any concrete evidence by which it can be established that the goods were not received by the respondent. During the investigation, statement of Shri. Nilesh Prakash Lonkar, authorised signatory of the company was recorded which was endorsed by Shri. Ashish Bhala, Director of the Company wherein he categorically stated that they have received the goods supplied by M/s. Ravi Steel Industries, Nagpur. In the statement they stated that goods received by them was accounted for in the gate inward register and the same was accounted for in Fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e details of payments made by Noticee No.16 against the purchase of Waste and Scrap of Steel from Noticee No.1 and payments received by the Noticee No.1 in their company account were as per Annexcure B-13. 25.7. Thus, it appeared that though Noticee No.1 during the June, 2010 to June, 2011 cleared excisable goods i.e. Waste and Scrap of Steel of quantity 1809.880MT valued at ₹ 3,43,11,428/- under the cover of sale invoices issued under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 as mentioned in Annexure A-13 to Noticee No.16, but they had not shown these sale in their statutory records/books of account and failed to pay Central Excise Duty of ₹ 35,34,077/- (Cenvat-Rs.34,31,143/-+Ed. Cess-Rs.68,623/-+ S HE Cess-Rs.34,311/-) wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the accounts of Noticee No. 1 has also been confirmed by the Department. It has also been confirmed by the Department that in cases where the goods were sold by the Registered Dealer or traders, the payments were received by them from their buyers through normal Banking channels only. These facts appear to establish that in so far as Noticee No. 4 to Noticee No. 52 were concerned, all the transactions entered into by them with Noticee No. 1 were completely bona fide in nature and they had no reason to doubt that Noticee No.1 would not pay the 'duty payable' mentioned in the Central Excise invoices to the Department in the future. Therefore, I have to hold that in this case Noticee No. 4 to Noticee No. 52 had exercised reasonable c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
