9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 547X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the samples tested by him were found to be different from that invoiced. It is also not the case that the department had intercepted some of the raw materials supplied, taken samples thereof, got them tested and proved that what was received was not what was invoiced. The department has not sufficiently proved its case. The allegations in the show cause notice are not supported by any solid evidence but only statements. Hence, even a preponderance of probability has not been proved by the department. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/494 & 474/2012 - Final Order Nos. 42207-42208/2018 - Dated:- 2-8-2018 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) and Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri M.A. Mu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1944. The show cause notice also proposed imposition of penalties on Alagappa, M/s. Amman Steel, M/s. Vijay Kamal Traders under Rule 25 of CENVAT Credit Rules, read with Section 11AC of the Act. In adjudication, the original authority confirmed the proposals and also imposed penalties of ₹ 10,65,577/- on UAL, ₹ 40,000/- on Alagappa (under Rule 25), ₹ 40,000/- on M/s. Amman Steel and ₹ 17,000/- on M/s. Vijay Kamal Traders. In appeal, Commissioner (Appeals), upheld the order of the adjudicating authority and rejected the appeals filed before him. M/s. UAL (Appeal No. E/494/2012) and Alagappa (Appeal No. E/474/2014) have preferred appeals before this Tribunal. 2. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, on behalf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he description and value contained in the original invoice of the manufacturers. The fact that they have paid the differential duty itself goes to prove the contravention of law. The ld. AR relies on the following case laws:- a. Mukand Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur 2007(7) STR 159 (Tri. Mum.) b. Steel India Company Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune 2014 (310) ELT 184 (Tri. Mum.) 4. Heard both sides. 5. The allegation in the show cause notice, as seen from para 20 thereof, is that UAL failed to take reasonable steps to ensure that inputs in respect of which they had taken CENVAT credit were the goods on which appropriate duty of excise as indicated in the documents accompanying the goods have been pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cause notice concerns the procedure followed by him while giving the lab test report. He has also stated that he is not aware of the description mentioned in the invoices / deliver challans accompanying the goods and that in the test report generated, the chemical composition of the raw materials received and also the shape of the sample tested would only be given . This being so, there is nothing in the statement of P. Kumaresan to support any allegation that the samples tested by him were found to be different from that invoiced. It is also not the case that the department had intercepted some of the raw materials supplied, taken samples thereof, got them tested and proved that what was received was not what was invoiced. 5.2 The cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
