TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1126X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has received only invoices. These allegations are not established by input and output quantifications during the relevant period so as to establish a case of fraudulent availment of credit. Appeal dismissed - decided in favor of respondent-assessee. - E/884/2009-SM - A/31388/2016 - Dated:- 15-12-2016 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S., Member (Judicial) Shri Arun Kumar, Deputy Commissioner(AR) for the Appellant None for the Respondent ORDER [ Order per Sulekha Beevi, C. S. ] The above appeal is filed by the Department against the order passed by Commissioner(Appeals) who partly allowed the appeal filed by the respondents herein by setting aside the demand raised alleging fraudulent availment of CENVAT credit. 2. The f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hri V.N. Sunanda Reddy, Ex-Managing Director, and on Shri N. Gangi Reddy. An amount of ₹ 15 lakhs paid during the course of investigation was appropriated vide the impugned order. Aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was filed on behalf of SSOL by Shri B. Subba Reddy who was the then Managing Director of the company. Separate appeals were filed by Shri V.N. Sunanda Reddy and Shri N. Gangi Reddy. The Commissioner(Appeals) vide the impugned order set aside the demand of ₹ 11,95,213/- which was confirmed alleging fraudulent availment of CENVAT credit. In respect of the demand of ₹ 30,08,927/- on clandestine clearance of goods, the Commissioner(Appeals) remanded the issue to the adjudicating authority. The present appeal is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... statements of dealers who had given invoices to the SSOL without supply of goods would establish that SSOL was engaged in fraudulent availment of CENVAT credit. Learned AR argued that the Commissioner(Appeals) has erred in observing that the statement of dealers as well as statement of Shri G. Suresh are not sufficient to corroborate the evidence contained in the private records recovered from SSOL. He contended that the evidences would establish that SSOL is engaged in fraudulent availment of CENVAT credit and therefore the demand of ₹ 11,95,213/- deserves to be confirmed. 4. None appeared on behalf of the respondent eventhough notice was issued. The matter was taken up for disposal after hearing the learned AR and after perusal o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as carried out by his rival Directors Shri V.N. Sunanda Reddy and Shri V. Gangi Reddy. In the said reply Shri Subba Reddy stated that Shri V.N. Sunanda Reddy is responsible for evasion and he could be called upon to pay the duty evaded. Thus while taking note of the fact that there exist dispute in the management, it has to be borne in mind that there is a chance that evidences may be shadowed by the collusion and rivalry between the two factions. 7. It is worthwhile to mention that at the time of search, there are no discrepancies in the stock of raw materials, intermediate and finished products. So also no discrepancies were noted in the statutory records. Entire case is based upon the private records alleged to be maintained by on Shr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
