9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 185X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from Delhi to Nadiad is not much in dispute. The appellant have purchased the goods from M/s. Pranav Metal Mart, Nadiad. As regard transaction between the said registered dealer and the present appellant, no discrepancy was found. The investigation did not enquire anything from the appellant and they have not disputed the receipt of goods in their factory, recording the same in the books of accounts and excise records. The use of such goods and the manufacture of final product out of the said input and clearances thereof on payment of duty is not disputed. Entire case was based on the investigation between Delhi importers and the registered dealer i.e. M/s. Pranav Metal Mart - there are no sufficient, tangible and cogent evidences gather ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paid invoices issued by registered dealers namely, M/s. Pranav Metal Mart, Nadiad without receipt of goods covered in the said invoices. From the investigation, various evidences were collected such as Ledger copies, RTO Check post report, VAT check post report, records from transporters and their statements. On the basis on these evidences, a Show Cause Notice was issued and the same was adjudicated, whereby, the demand of Cenvat Credit was confirmed and penalties on the appellants were imposed. 2. Being aggrieved by the Order-In-Original, appellant filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) which came to be rejected except setting aside the penalty of ₹ 15,88,699/- imposed on the appellant M/s. Indigo Metal Industries under Rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entered in the register maintained by them. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments :- MALERKOTLA STEELS ALLOYS PVT. LTD. VS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE 2008 (229) ELT 607 ( Tri. Delhi) confirmed by High Court 2009 (224) ELT 48 (P H). HIREN ALUMINIUM LTD. VS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE 2009 (245) ELT 386 ( Tri. Ahd.) MANAKSIA LTD. VS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAJKOT 2008 (232) ELT 497 (Tri. Ahd.) confirmed by Gujarat High Court COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, VS NEEPAZ STEELS LTD. 2008 (230) ELT 218 ( P H) MONARCH METAL PVT. LTD. OTHERS Order No. A/1799-1801/Ahd/09 dated 7.08.2009 confirmed by Hon ble Gujarat High Court. MOTABHAI IRON STEEL INDUSTRIES Reported in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le 26 cannot be made applicable. In this regard he placed reliance on the following judgments :- JAI NARAIN VERMA VS COLLECTOR OF CUSTOM 1995 (76) ELT 421 DABESH PRASAND NANDA VS. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., 2016 (332) ELT 733 ( Trib. Del) 4. Shri S.N. Gohil, Learned Superintendent (Authorized Representative) appearing on behalf of the revenue reiterates the finding of the impugned order. 5. I have heard both the sides and perused the record, I find that though the DGCEI has conducted thorough investigation but that is related to the transportation of goods from Delhi to the registered dealer i.e. M/s. Pranav Metal Mart, Nadiad. Even in the said investigation the only evidence found was that the truck by which the goods were tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
