9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 2261X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the disputed period were not transported from the factory of M/s VKM to the appellant s manufacturing unit. Further, it is also found that based on the investigation conducted by the DGCEI in the premises of M/s VKM, the proceedings were initiated against the appellant, alleging fraudulent availment of Cenvat credit. Since, the order confirming the demands against M/s VKM has already been set aside by the Tribunal in VINOD KUMAR JAIN VERSUS C.C.E. S.T. -JAMMU KASHMIR AND OTHERS [ 2018 (5) TMI 1512 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] on the ground that it had manufactured the impugned goods in its factory, it is opined that the adjudged demands confirmed against the appellant cannot be sustained for judicial scrutiny. Appeal allowed - decided ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the invoices is not proper and justified. Accordingly, the department proceeded against the appellant for denial of fraudulent Cenvat benefit availed by it. The matter was adjudicated vide order dated 11.01.2017, wherein Cenvat Credit amounting to Rs.19,11,382/- was disallowed and interest liability was confirmed on the appellant. Besides, the said order also imposed equal amount of penalty on the appellant. On appeal, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the adjudged demands confirmed on the appellant. 3. Learned Consultant appearing for the appellant submits that the matter adjudicated against M/s VKM and Ors. In confirming the demands were appealed against before the Tribunal, which were disposed of vide final order No. 5198 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... period were not transported from the factory of M/s VKM to the appellant s manufacturing unit. Further, I also find that based on the investigation conducted by the DGCEI in the premises of M/s VKM, the proceedings were initiated against the appellant, alleging fraudulent availment of Cenvat credit. Since, the order confirming the demands against M/s VKM has already been set aside by the Tribunal vide order on 23.05.2018 on the ground that it had manufactured the impugned goods in its factory, I am of the view that the adjudged demands confirmed against the appellant cannot be sustained for judicial scrutiny. 7. Therefore, I do not find any merits in the impugned order. Accordingly, after setting aside the same, the appeal is allowed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
