Shri Anant Bomb, Ajay Goel, Lalit Thakuria, Neeraj Thakur Versus CGST, CE & CC, Bhopal
Central Excise
2018 (6) TMI 784 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI
CESTAT NEW DELHI – AT
Dated:- 1-6-2018
Appeal No. E/52137/2016-SM, E/52153/2016, E/52143/2016, E/52842/2016 – A/52094-52097/2018-SM[BR]
Central Excise
Shri Bijay Kumar, Member (Technical)
Shri Manish Saharan, Advocate, Shri M.K. Sharma, CA (52842/16) – for the appellant
Shri H.C. Saini, D.R. – for the respondent
Per Bijay Kumar:
The present order disposes off the above four appeals filed by the appellant against a common adjudication Order No. 19-20/PR. COMM/CEX/BPL-1/2016 dated 31.3.2016, wherein a penalty of Rs. 25 lakhs was imposed upon each of the appellant, viz. (i)
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
e ledger, as stated by the ld. Advocate, is a crucial document for the verification of the transactions in question. Further, the order is based on the third party statement without any corroborative evidence. That there is no dispute that the goods were cleared by the appellant but the allegation that those are diverted en-route to have been not investigated and discussed by the ld. Adjudicating authority. Also that the transactions with M/s Ujala Electricals Ltd. by the banking channel and there is no evidence of any financial flow back to the appellant. Ld. Advocate further relied upon the decision of M/s Z.U. Alvi Vs. CCE, Bhopal – 2000 (117) ELT 69 (Tribunal ) and Manohar Singh Rana Vs. CCE, Indore – 2017 (357) ELT 1163 (Tri.-Delhi) Th
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
vocate is of the opinion that there is no case of penalty which has been imposed upon the appellant under Rule 26 ibid. from the above ground.
3. Ld. DR, on the other hand, reiterated the fact contained in the impugned order and stated that all these invoices were issued by the appellant companies without supply of the goods and, therefore, facilitated the availment of the wrong Cenvat credit which is contrary to the provision of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002.
4. Heard both the parties and considered the case record.
5. The only issue involved in the present case is regarding imposition of penalty of Rs. 25 lakhs each under the provisions of Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 as a co-noticee, for the fraudulent availment of Cenvat credit
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =