9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 10X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce of probabilities. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has thoroughly examined the case and concluded that the Cenvat demand has been correctly disallowed to the appellant. Penalty - HELD THAT:- The vehicle nos. were incorrectly entered by it in the invoices, facilitating the Appellant No.1 to avail the fraudulent Cenvat Credit. Further, it is also evident that the vehicles were not used for transportation of the subject goods for delivery at the factory of the Appellant No.1 - penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 upheld. Penalty on the Appellant No.2, Shri Owais Shakir Nuri, Director of Appellant No.1 company - HELD THAT:- Neither the original nor the impugned orders have specifically discussed about the role ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant No.1 had purchased M.S. Scrap from various suppliers, who were not registered with Central Excise Department and therefore, did not pass any Cenvat Credit to it. It has further been observed by the officers of DGCEI that the appellant had obtained pre-fabricated structure, considering the same as capital goods from the Appellant No.3 and availed Cenvat Credit on the same. During the course of investigation, statement of transporters and local scrap suppliers were recorded by the department under the provisions of Section 14 of Central Excise Act, 1944. Based on the investigation report, the department initiated show cause proceedings against the appellants, which culminated into the order dated 10.12.2017, wherein the adjudicating auth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adjudged demands based on proper investigation into the matter regarding non-receipt of the duty paid goods in the factory of the Appellant No.1, the impugned order cannot be interfered with and sustains in the eyes of law. 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. 6. The material evidences available in the file for consideration of the dispute are summarized herein below:- (i) In the statements recorded under summon, the transporters have denied having transported any material in respect of the disputed invoices from the factory of the Appellant No.3 and receipt of any payment for transportation from the Appellant No.1. (ii) The laden capacity of the vehicle bearing Regist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... D.Bhoormal 1983 (13) ELT 1546 (S.C.) that the department is not required to prove a case of mathematical precision and is required to prove a case with the pre-ponderance of probabilities. In this case, I find that the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has thoroughly examined the case and vide paragraph 7 and 7.1 has concluded that the Cenvat demand has been correctly disallowed to the appellant. Thus, I do not find any justifiable reason to differ with the findings in the impugned order, so far as it confirmed the Cenvat demand and imposed penalty on the Appellant No.1. 8. So far as imposition of penalty on the Appellant No.3 is concerned, I find that vehicle nos. were incorrectly entered by it in the invoices, facilitating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
