9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 490X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s M/s. Omega Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. On appeal against order dated 28.11.2017 passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), Mumbai, this Tribunal has held 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. From the above observations made by the Tribunal, the issue is crystal clear that in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of any excisable goods. 2. The learned Consultant appearing for the appellants submitted that in the present case, the goods were actually supplied to one M/s. Omega Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. and proceedings initiated against the said buyers were considered favorably by the Tribunal vide Final Order No. A/88426/2018 dated 25.07.2018. Thus, he submitted that since the goods were actually supplied by the present appellant M/s. V. K. Metal Works, the charges leveled against them for imposition of penalty cannot be sustained. With regard to the other appellant M/s. Kanpur Kashmir Roadways, he submitted that the allegation of non-movement of goods cannot be sustained, in view of the order dated 25.07.2018 (supra) and accordingly, imposition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. From the above observations made by the Tribunal, the issue is cristal clear that in the present case, the goods were in fact supplies by the appellant M/s. V.K. Metal Works to M/s. Omega Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. and the transporter M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
