TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1048X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Excise officers. Hence, I find force in the findings of the Adjudicating authority. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the extended period of limitation would be invoked. - it is a proprietary-ship firm and therefore, imposition of penalty on the Proprietor cannot be sustained. It is also noticed that the Appellant No.3 is an Authorised Signatory and therefore, no penalty should be imposed upon him. - Decided partly in favour of assessee. - Appeal No.E/432-434/2011-SM - Order No.A/11791-11793/2015 - Dated:- 23-11-2015 - Mr. P.K. Das, Member (Judicial) For the Petitioner : Shri R. Subramanya, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri S.K. Shukla, A.R. ORDER Per: P.K. Das The relevant facts of the case, in brie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oprietor and a penalty of ₹ 10,000.00 on Shri R.B. Yadav, Authorised Signatory of the Appellant firm. 2. The learned Advocate on behalf of the Appellants contested the demand on merit and on limitation. He submits that there is no dispute that at the time of availing CENVAT Credit, the Appellant possessed the original copy of the invoices, which were lost during the flood and therefore, the CENVAT Credit should be allowed on the basis of photo-copy of the invoices. He further submits that the photo-copy of the invoices has to be accepted for the purpose of verification. It is further submitted that the CENVAT Credit was taken during the period January 2003 to June 2005 and Audit was conducted on 31.03.2006. It is further submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce, in respect of which the MODVAT Credit also stand denied. We leave the said issue for Commissioner to decide afresh in de-novo proceedings. 5. On perusal of the impugned order, I find that during de-novo Adjudication, the Appellants stated before the Adjudicating authority that they do not have any new or other documents except the documents submitted at the time of earlier Adjudication. Thus, the Appellants had not produced any documents in terms of Tribunals order before the Adjudicating authority in denovo Adjudication. Hence, I do not find any substance in the submission of the learned Advocate on merit. 6. Regarding the issue on time bar, the Adjudicating authority observed as under:- 7.3 .The panchnama has been draw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 005, May 2005 and June 2005 which has no relation with the flood. It is seen from the records that the Appellants had not informed the Department about the loss of invoices during the flood. This fact was detected during the audit conducted by the Central Excise officers. Hence, I find force in the findings of the Adjudicating authority. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the extended period of limitation would be invoked. 7. There is a force in the submission of the learned Advocate that it is a proprietary-ship firm and therefore, imposition of penalty on the Proprietor cannot be sustained. It is also noticed that the Appellant No.3 is an Authorised Signatory and therefore, no penalty should be imposed upon him. 8. In view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
