9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1668X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d out the investigation in the premises of the appellant and found that during the period April 2003 to March 2008, the appellant had availed cenvat credit of Rs. 13,76,239/- on the strength of forged invoices. During the course of investigation, the appellant deposited Rs. 19,65,200/- and informed the Department vide letter dated 23.06.2008 regarding such deposit. Thereafter, show cause notice dated 01.08.2008 was issued to the appellant, seeking disallowance of cenvat credit and for imposition of penalties. The said notice was adjudicated vide order dated 30.10.2009, wherein cenvat credit of Rs. 13,76,239/- was disallowed alongwith interest. The amount of Rs. 19,65,200/- was appropriated towards the cenvat and the interest demand confirme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the cenvat demand confirmed in the adjudication order inasmuch as according to the appellant, the cenvat credit availed during the disputed period was Rs. 13,70,513/-, whereas the cenvat credit of Rs. 13,76,239/- was confirmed in the adjudication order. 3. On the other hand, the ld. DR appearing for the Revenue reiterates the findings recorded in the impugned order. 4. Heard both sides and perused the records. 5. Since the appellant is not contesting disallowance of cenvat credit of Rs. 13,70,513/-, I upheld the said demand confirmed by the authorities below. The issue for consideration before the Tribunal is, as to whether, penalty can be imposed on the appellants in the terms of Rule 15(1) and 15(2) ibid. 6. The statement, recorded by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... account maintained by the appellant. Thus, so far as taking of cenvat credit by the appellant, I am of the view that the conditions of Rule 3 ibid has not been violated in this case. The documents available in the case file show that the appellant was not aware of the fact regarding non-payment of Central Excise duty by the supplier of raw Bidis into the Central Government account. The adjudicating authority vide paragraph 10 in the order dated 13.10.2009 has stated the fact regarding non-payment of duty by the Bidi suppliers in terms of the confirmation provided by the UCO. Bank, Angul vide letter dated 13.06.2008. I also find that for the fraudulent activities of non-payment of duty and issuance of forged invoices, the appellant had logge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
