9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 329X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds. Thus, it has been alleged that they are not entitled to avail CENVAT Credit on the invoices issued to M/s. Ronix. However, it is a fact on record that M/s. Ganpati has manufactured the goods and the same have been cleared on payment of duty, which has been accepted by the Revenue. If the duty has been accepted by the Revenue, in these circumstances, CENVAT Credit availed cannot be denied, as has been held by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of C.Ex., Pune-III v. M/s. Ajinkya Enterprises [2012 (7) TMI 141 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]. wherein it has been held that payment of duty shall amount to reversal of credit even if there is no manufacturing activity. Admittedly, in this case, M/s. Ganpati has paid the duty and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... npati Environ Projects (P) Ltd. 556/2012 23- 25/Commissioner/CE/Kol -IV/2012 dt. 14.06.2012 Penalty = Rs.1,00,000/- 6. Shri Rajendra Kr. Saraogi 557/2012 23- 25/Commissioner/CE/Kol -IV/2012 dt. 14.06.2012 Penalty = Rs.1,00,000/- 2. The facts of the case are as under : - (i) M/s. Ganpati Environ Projects (P) Limited was engaged in the manufacture and clearance of PVC Compound under the Central Excise Tariff Sub-heading No. 39041090 and P.E. Fittings falling under Central Tariff Sub-heading No. 39172190 from the inputs i.e. Resin, Paraffin Wax/Wax, Calcium, Stearic Acid R.P. 1018 and Titanium Dioxide. They were registered with the Central Excise Authority. The appellant were clearing their product on payment of Central Excise duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also stated that M/s. Ganpati Environ Projects (P) Limited cleared the manufactured finished goods on payment of duty; M/s. Ronix Polymer Private Limited was purchasing the goods and also availing credit. M/s. Ronix Polymer Private Limited was also clearing the goods on payment of duty. (iv) Proceedings were initiated by issuing the Show Cause Notice dated 25.11.2011 against M/s. Ganpati Environ Projects (P) Limited making M/s. Ronix Polymer Private Limited and Mr. Rajendra Kumar Saraogi as co-noticees. Proposals were made in the said Show Cause Notice to deny credit and recovery of the same from M/s. Ganpati Environ Projects (P) Limited and proposing imposition of penalty on M/s. Ronix Polymer Private Limited and Mr. Rajendra Kumar Sara ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it to M/s. Ganpati Environ Projects (P) Limited, charged interest and imposed penalty. At the same time, penalty was imposed on noticee no. 2 assuming that they had issued invoices without supplying the goods to enable credit by M/s. Ganpati Environ Projects (P) Limited. Penalty was imposed on noticee no. 3 assuming that he is the main person behind the taking of credit on the goods which were not used in the manufacturing process. (vii) Similar proceedings were initiated vide Show Cause Notice dated 02.03.2012 from the same transaction, denying credit to M/s. Ronix Polymer Private Limited and imposing penalty on M/s. Ganpati Environ Projects (P) Limited and Mr. Rajendra Kumar Saraogi in respect of Appeal Nos. 555, 556 & 557 of 2012. M/s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eferred to as "M/s. Ronix"), it is submitted that as M/s. Ronix have purchased duty paid PVC compound from M/s. Ganpati, used the same in their factory and cleared the same on payment of duty, in this case also, CENVAT Credit cannot be denied and penalty cannot be imposed. 3.2. To support his contention, he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of C.Ex. & Cus., Surat-III v. M/s. Creative Enterprises [2009 (235) E.L.T. 785 (Guj.)] which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court as reported in 2009 (243) ELT A120 (S.C.) and the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of C.Ex., Pune-III v. M/s. Ajinkya Enterprises [2013 (294) E.L.T. 203 (Bom.)]. 3.3. He ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty and therefore, we hold that CENVAT Credit cannot be denied. 7. The same is with the case of M/s. Ronix, which has taken CENVAT Credit on the duty paid by M/s. Ganpati and the same has been used in the manufacture of their final product, which were cleared on payment of duty. In these circumstances, when the Revenue has accepted the duty payment from the appellants, CENVAT Credit cannot be denied. 8. In fact, we are of the opinion that whole of the exercise is futile in this case. Consequently, the proceedings initiated against the appellants are not sustainable. 9. In these terms, we set aside the impugned orders and allow the appeals with consequential relief, if any, as per law. ( Order pronounced in the open court on 05. 03. 2025 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
