9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 647X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the subject matter concerns with the following main issues. i. Denial of Cenvat Credit of Rs. 61,14,698/- on alleged short found inputs. ii. Cenvat Credit of Rs. 35,47,178/- availed on goods not received into the factory(on 18 invoices). iii. Cenvat Credit of Rs. 66,442/- against the invoice no. 23 dated 23.04.2009 without receipt of the goods. iv. Cenvat Credit of Rs. 11,08,524/- taken on invoices where goods were returned back. v. Cenvat Credit of Rs. 2,33,694/- taken on invoice no. 201 dated 31.03.2008 with no record of the consignment passing Churu toll post. 3. The appellant has been represented by Sh. A.R. Madav Rao, Ld. Advocate and Revenue has been represented by Sh. M.P. Sharma, Ld. AR. 4. We have carefully conside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the goods were kept in the plot adjacent to the factory premises. The said adjacent plot has been found to be regularized in the name of the appellant company. The appellant company has also intimated to the Revenue about the regularization of the adjacent plot in the name of the appellant. Therefore, following the decision in the case of Munjal Showa Ltd. (supra), confirmation of the duty and penalty on this account is set aside. The assessee-appellant will get the relief accordingly. 5.2. Cenvat Credit of Rs. 35,47,178/- availed on 'goods not received into the factory' (on 18 invoices). The departments allegation is that the appellant company did not receive the goods against subject 18 invoices and they availed the credit for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... took the Cenvat Credit on nine self invoiceswhere there is no proof that the goods were actually returned to them. The appellant says that original allegation in the SCN (Show Cause Notice) was for wrong availment of credit on 14 invoices where there was no proof that the goods were actually returned to them. The appellant pleads that in case of five invoices (no. 271, 293, 726, 727, 31) demand was dropped in the OIO. The appellant further pleads that in case of remaining nine invoices, they submitted a chart making it clear that customers returned the goods by a GR or by endorsing the invoice itself. 5.4.1. The appellant company gives the proof of the return of goods in the form of letters from the customers or the marking on the invoice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vered under the subject invoice were not received by the appellant company, unless there are other substantial corroboratory evidences to prove the charge of non-receipt of such goods. In the instant case, there is no material brought on record by the Department in support of allegation. When it so then the demand of Cenvat Credit of Rs. 2,33,694/- on this account is not sustainable and is hereby dropped. 6. The appellant, Sh. Ramesh Kumar Agarwal, director for the appellant company has been penalized with the penalty of Rs. 15 lakh under Rule 26(1) of Central Excise Rules 2002 by the impugned order. The impugned order inter alia states that entire activities of the appellant company were being looked after by Sh. R.K. Agarwal, director. S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
