9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 468X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the discrepancy in the stock of goods in the factory of M/s KEPL cannot lead to any adverse inference against the Appellant since it can be due to many reasons and not attributable only to the Appellant, amongst all the suppliers. M/s KEPL has made payments by Cheques for the goods supplied under 18 invoices. Moreover Respondent has not disputed the contents of RG 23D Register maintained by the Dealer and the quarterly CENVAT returns submitted to the respondent as required under the Sub-Rule (8) of Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 showing the details of availing of credit on purchase of goods and passing of credit on sale of goods. Considering the above facts and the fact that the main appellant has settled the dues under the Sabka ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vidence that the appellant has not supplied the goods under Excise invoices. Merely based on the shortage of raw material in the factory of the consignee ie M/s KEPL, it is presumed that the appellant has not supplied the goods as per invoices. During investigation sufficient proof was given from the manufacturer, transporter.. to show that the material was received and delivered and full reconciliation was submitted to the Department. 3. Ld Counsel further submits that the SCN has not invoked specific clause of Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 as may be applicable to the dealer, since the dealer is not liable to pay any excise duty, there cannot be any intention to evade payment of duty. Ld Counsel drew our attention to the judgement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entral Excise Act, 1944. Secondly, cases for which the tax payer/noticee has already been convicted in a Court of law. Thirdly, cases under adjudication or litigation where the final hearing has taken place on or before 3006.2019. Fourthly, cases of erroneous refunds. Lastly, cases which are pending before the Settlement Commission. 6. In the present case, the main noticee has availed the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme Rules 2019 and settled the matter. As per Clause 10(a) of the Circular, a declaration under this scheme will not be a basis for assuming that the declarant has admitted the position, and no fresh show cause notice will be issued merely on that basis. Further as per clause 10(i) Circular Section 124(1)(b) pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the quarterly CENVAT returns submitted to the respondent as required under the Sub-Rule (8) of Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 showing the details of availing of credit on purchase of goods and passing of credit on sale of goods. 8. Considering the above facts and the fact that the main appellant has settled the dues under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme Rules 2019 which allows waiver of interest and penalty to the co-notice if the duty is discharged by the main notice, we find no merit to sustain the penalty against the appellant who is a co-notice. 9. Appeal is allowed by setting aside the penalty imposed on the appellant with consequential relief if any in accordance with Law. (Order pronounced in open court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
