9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1705X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of duty made by them, the appellant is entitled to deduct the demand of ₹ 16,18,834/- from the subsequent demand of ₹ 25,57,554/- and they are liable to only the balance demand of ₹ 9,38,720/- in the circumstances. Confiscation - penalty - Held that: - in view of the fact that the appellants had reversed the duty in the course of investigation and the whole finding of lower authority is on assumption and presumption, the confiscation and penalty set aside. Appeal allowed in part. - E/2916, 2917/2010-EX[SM] & E/60706/2013-EX[SM] - A/70552-70554/2018 - Dated:- 2-12-2016 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) Shri Rajesh Chhibber (Advocate) - for Appellant Shri D. K. Deb (Asstt. Commr.) AR - for Responde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o Cenvat account on 27/08/2008 to the tune of ₹ 7,18,834/- and further amount of ₹ 8,20,000/- was deposited by challan on 28 th August, 2008. The said stock was put under seizure vide Panchanama dated 9 th September, 2008. 5. It was further observed that the assessee is maintaining a single record (Form-IV Register) for the receipt and consumption of raw material and scrap of iron steel and consolidated entry was made for receipt consumption of such raw material. 6. It further appeared to Revenue that the assessee received scrap of iron steel which was not cenvatable. As per the statement of the Director Mr. Karun Juneja, who stated that scrap of iron steel was consigned by the trader and manufacturer registered un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. As regards Aman Roadlines, when they visited given address, it was found that another transport Company in the name of Vikas Roadlines' was operating at the same address, who claimed that they were working there for last 2-3 years and they do not know anything about Aman Roadlines and further R. K. Transport Service could not be found at their given address. On inquiry nobody could be found at R. K. Transport Service. Accordingly, the view was taken that no cenvatable scrap were transported by transporters and only cenvatable invoices were procured by the assessee to avail Cenvat credit fraudulently, and the inputs were substituted with the market scrap, which find support from the facts that during stock taking such non-cenvatable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the penalties imposed and confiscation being Order-in-Appeal dated 30 th June, 2010 and (ii) Order-in-Appeal dated 15 th July, 2013 pleased to uphold the recovery of Cenvat demand of ₹ 25,57,554/- and equal penalty, but was pleased to set aside the penalty of ₹ 5 lakhs imposed on the Director Mr. Karun Juneja. 9. The summary of demand of penalty is SI. Appeal No. SCN No. Dated Input Cenvat Disallowed Penalty 1. E/60706/2013 29/02/2012 Rs.25,57,554/- (Approximated) Rs.25,57,554/- 2. E/2916/2010 09/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Revenue has not pointed out anything during investigation in respect to mismatch in the consumption of the raw materials with respect to the manufactured goods. There is no finding that any of the suppliers of the raw materials have denied the supply of inputs, as mentioned in the invoices. It is further urged that in respects of the same set of transactions, Revenue have wrongly raised two separate demands, one with respect to the invoices and the other with respect to the subject goods, at the time of inspection. In any view of the matter the demand of ₹ 16,18,834/-, the benefit of telescope can be given. The Learned Counsel further relied on ruling of this Bench in Appeal No.E/54587/2014-SM whereby Final Order dated 7 th January ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ismissed. 13. Having considered the rival contentions, I find that the Revenue had not made any inquiry from the supplier of the scrap (Cenvat input) to the appellants. There is no finding of the fact that the supplier of raw material and the supplier of invoices are different persons. Revenue have drawn reliance mainly on the visual inspection of scrap without relating it from Invoice number and the transporters not found at their address. Further adverse inference is drawn on the deposit or reversal of Cenvat credit by the appellants - assessee, at the time of inspection/investigation. Under these circumstances, I find that Revenue had not established with sufficient evidences that the appellants have not received cenvatable inputs in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
