9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1736X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . For The Appellant : Shri H.G. Dharmadhikari, learned counsel with Ms. Lalita Phadge and Shri Sankalp Sharma, learned counsel ORDER Shri H.G. Dharmadhikari, learned counsel with Ms. Lalita Phadge and Shri Sankalp Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant. Heard on admission. This appeal under Section 35G(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is directed against the order No. A/50870-50872/2017-EX(DB) dated 15/02/2017 passed by the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in Appeal No. E/2382/2008-EX(DB). The relevant facts briefly are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacturing of Polyethylene shea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant had procured duty paid polyethylene granules from various polyethylene granules manufacturers and availed cenvat credit. It sold such duty paid polyethylene on which they availed the cenvat credit. The DGCEI found that the inputs which were shown or sold through Vivek Mishra in respect of which invoices been issued in the name of the appellant. Thus the appellant was found to have wrong taken cenvat credit of ₹ 6,17,950/- (₹ 61,79,248/- as Central Excise Duty and ₹ 3,254/- as education cess) on the inputs which were sold and not used in the manufacturing. Commissioner, Central Excise after considering the reply and other material evidence on record found the facts about clandestine clearance o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plier of raw material. It is also the argument of the assessee appellant that sale invoice having the same numbers have been wrongly repeatedly taken into account to arrive at the quantity of the raw material on which Cenvat credit was denied. 6.1. It appears that there has been no defence with the appellants in case of 6,70,000 Kgs of raw material of Polyethylene granules for which invoices were issued by M/s GAIL to M/s Resham Polymers ltd., but the said goods were never physically received in the factory of appellant and the appellant, therefore, wrongly took the Cenvat credit of ₹ 41,40,880/- on this account. The appellant assessee has not given sufficient evidence that this material quantifying 6,70,000 Kgs of r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
