9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 781X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... go behind the accounts maintained or transactions made by the first stage dealer so as to ensure whether the credit availed is correct or not - credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2002 read with Section 9 of Central Excise Act, 1944 on Leadsman, Meenakshi and Amman. In adjudication, the original authority vide order dated 25.11.2010 confirmed the proposals for recovery of cenvat credit as made out in the SCN, imposed equal penalty on Ellen under Rule 15(2) read with Section 11 AC and penalty of ₹ 2,60,000/- on Leadsman under Rule 25 ibid and interalia penalties of ₹ 55,000/- under Rule 25 ibid on Meenakshi and ₹ 3,70,000/- on Amman. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order dated 13.12.2011 upheld the order of the original authority. Hence appeals E/1/2012, E/198/2012 and E/213/2012 filed by Ellen, Meenakshi and Amman respectively. 2. Today when the matter came up for hearing, on be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scrap but that they had issued invoices of duty paid scrap to only to enable wrong availment of cenvat credit thereon. She also submits that even the Managing Director had admitted to the modus operandi. Further, the statements recorded were not retracted by the persons concerned at any stage of adjudication. She also drew our attention to paragraph-4 of the SCN dated 24.08.2009 to canvass that the first dealer had procured MS wire, coil, etc., and subsequently, there was discrepancy with regard to the very description of the goods. 4. We have considered the rival contentions, perused the orders of the lower authorities and also have gone through the final orders of CESTAT referred to during the course of hearing. 5. We find the Ld. Consu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Leadsman Enterprises and other first stage dealers. 8. The appellants have availed CENVAT Credit on the duty paid on the invoices. So also the entire transaction of the appellant has been through banks. Apart from certain assumptions based on the statements given by M/s. Leadsman Enterprises, there is no cogent evidence to prove that the appellants have availed wrong credit. The Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Juhi Alloys Ltd. (supra) had occasion to consider a similar issue and had observed that Sub-clause (3) of Rule 9, though states that the manufacturer/producer of excisable goods shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that the goods on which he has taken CENVAT Credit has been suffered appropriate duty, does not mean ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m v. Tata Motors Ltd. - 2013 (294) E.L.T. 394 (Jhar.), where it was held as follows :- "... Once a buyer of inputs receives invoices of excisable items, unless factually it is established to the contrary, it will be presumed that when payments have been made in respect of those inputs on the basis of invoices, the buyer is entitled to assume that the excise duty has been/will be paid by the supplier on the excisable inputs. The buyer will be therefore entitled to claim Modvat credit on the said assumption. It would be most unreasonable and unrealistic to expect the buyer of such inputs to go and verify the accounts of the supplier or to find out from the department of Central Excise whether actually duty has been paid on the inputs by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
