9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 389X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TAT ALLAHABAD ] as no further ground is raised, there are no merits in the impugned orders. Appeal allowed. - HON BLE MR. P. K. CHOUDHARY , MEMBER ( JUDICIAL ) And HON BLE MR. SANJIV SRIVASTAVA , MEMBER ( TECHNICAL ) Shri Arpit Tiwari , Deputy Manager - Accounts written submission for the Appellant Shri Manish Raj , Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER SANJIV SRIVASTAVA : These appears are directed against Order-in-Appeal No.41- 42-CE/APPL/KNP/ADG-NACIN/2017-18 dated 22/02/2018 passed by Additional Director General (ZTI) Customs, Indirect Taxes Narcotics, Kanpur. By the impugned order, Commissioner (Appeals) has held as follows:- ORDER In view of the above, the Order-in-Original No.04/CE/ADC/2016 dated 06.01.2016 passed by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and recovered from them under the provisions of Rule, 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944; II. Interest should not be charged and recovered from them under Rule,14 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944; and III. Penalty should not be imposed upon them under Rule 15(2) of CENVAT Credit Rule, 2004 read with Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 for the aforesaid contraventions; IV. Penalty should not be imposed upon them Under Rule 27 of Central Excise Rule, 2002 for the aforesaid contraventions. 2.3 This show cause notice has been adjudicated as per Order- in-Original No.04/CE/ADC/2016 dated 06.01.2016 by holding as follows:- ORDER 1. I disa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... strial Estate, Kanpur under Rule 15(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2.4 Appellants filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) which has been dismissed as per the impugned order referred in para-1 above. Hence, this appeal. 3.1 We have heard Shri Arpit Tiwari appearing with written submission for the appellant and Shri Manish Raj, learned Authorised Representative appearing for the revenue. 4.1 We have considered the impugned orders along with the submissions made in appeal and during the course of argument. 4.2 Show cause notice dated 30.01.2015 was adjudicated by the Commissioner, Central Excise Service Tax, Kanpur vide Order-in-Original No.KNP-EXCUS-000-COM-018-15-16 dated 29.10.2015 by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct, 1944 readwith Rule 15(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. 4. I also impose a penalty of Rs.5,000/- upon M/s Akzo Nobel India Itd., Plot No.2A, Site-IIB, Panki Industrial Estate, Kanpur under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, for the contraventions discussed here-in-above. 5. I also impose a penalty of Rs.5,00,000/- upon Shri Mahendra Dhatarwal, Assistant Manager (Commercial) of M/s Akzo Nobel India Itd., Plot No.2A, Site-IIB, Panki Industrial Estate, Kanpur under Rule 15(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, for the reasons discussed here-in- above. 6. I do not impose any penalty upon Shri Rajeev Malviya, the ex-employee of M/s Akzo Nobel India ltd., Plot No.2A, Site-IIB, Panki Industrial Estate, Kanpur for the reasons discusse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its Final Order No.71686/2017 dated 13.10.2016, the disputed issue was resolved in favour of the assessee. For better appreciation, we reproduce the relevant paragraphs from the impugned orders:- 12. We have heard both sides at length and perused the records. We find that the entire case of the revenue confirming the impugned demand by denying Cenvat Credit is unsustainable, both on facts and in law. Nothing is brought on record by the revenue to prove that the assessee did not receive duty paid inputs and/or it did not utilise the same for manufacture of finished excisable goods cleared on payment of duty. The existence of commercial arrangement between the appellant and JMCIPL is only to carry out the commercial activities for the purpos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner pursuant to the order of remand made by the Tribunal earlier, cannot be upheld. The law is well settled that the revenue cannot pass orders arbitrarily and cannot deny the credit or raise demand merely based on assumptions and presumptions. When facts on records are verified and found to be contrary to the allegations made in the notice, the demand as per notice cannot be confirmed again. The decision of the Supreme Court in Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT AIR 1955 SC 65 clearly supports the assessee as the Commissioner did not provide to the assessee the copy of the verification report of the Assistant Commissioner, which is claimed by it to be in support of its entitlement to Cenvat Credit after thorough verification, and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
