9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 1344X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are disposed of by a common order. 3. The fact of the case are that on the basis of an intelligence, the search was conducted by DGCEI against one Shri Amit Gupta (one of the appellants herein), admitted that he has floated fictitious firm in the name of M/s Unnati Alloys Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Moral Alloys Pvt. Ltd. (the appellants herein above), who were issuing cenvatable invoices enabling the manufacturers buyers to avail inadmissible cenvet credit. In one of the cases, M/s.Unnati Alloys Pvt. Ltd. and Moral Alloys Pvt. Ltd. issued cenvatable invoices to one Shree BalaJi Enterprises, dealer (who is also an appellant before me) enabling them to issue cenvatable invoices to the manufacturer to avail Cenvat credit. During the course of investig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Pvt. Ltd./Moral Alloys Pvt. Limited/Shri Amit Gupta. The matters were adjudicated, Cenvat credit availed on the basis of invoices in question was denied to the manufacturers, and the penalties were imposed on Shri Amit Gupta, M/s.Unnati Alloys Pvt. Ltd., Moral Alloys Pvt. Limited and Shree Balaji Enterprises, the first stage dealers. Against those orders, the appellants named hereinabove are in appeal before me. 4. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of Shri Amit Gupta submits that the penalties have been imposed on him on the basis of denial of credit to the manufacturer buyer and in the case of manufacturer buyer the cenvat credit already been allowed, in that circumstances, the penalty cannot be imposed on Shri Amit Gupta. 5. It is furthe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e goods and Shri Amit Gupta in his statement has admitted the said fact. Further, the transporter has also admitted that no goods have been transported by them. Moreover, some dealers have also admitted that they have not received the goods. He also submits that the written submissions be also taken on record. 9. Heard the parties and considered the written submissions and judgement placed on record. I find that on the basis of the investigation in the matters, various show cause notices were issued to various manufacturers/buyers of the goods in question and this Tribunal has observed in the case of M/s. Haryana Industries (supra) as under:- "3. On hearing the parties, I find that on the same investigation, several cases have been adjud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... invoices in question or not? In that circumstance, the investigation is faulty. Further, in the absence of evidence on record that if the invoices were not accompanying the goods then from where these manufacturers have procured the goods who has manufactured the dutiable goods which has been cleared on payment of duty. In some of the cases, the cenvet credit has already been allowed, therefore, I hold that in any of the above case, no penalty is imposable on the appellants under Rules 25/26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.
11. Therefore, the impugned orders quo imposing penalties on the above appellants are set aside. Consequently, the appeals are allowed with consequential relief, if any.
(Dictated & pronounced in the Court) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
