2017 (10) TMI 279

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he reversal of the Cenvat Credit taken by the respondent against such invoice for the period February 2011 to June 2011. The demand was confirmed by the original adjudicating authority. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) dropped the demand on the ground that the appellants cannot be faulted if supplier M/s.Ravi Steel Industries had collected the duty from the appellants and failed to deposit the same with the Revenue. On the said aground, the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the demand and the penalty imposed on the appellant while upholding the penalty on the supplier M/s.Ravi Steel Industries. 3. Ld. AR argued that the credit has been denied on the invoices on which no duty was debited by M/s.Ravi Steel Industries and the said goods....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t the Commissioner (Appeals) has given detailed findings on the issue. He further pointed out that a show-cause notice was issued to M/s.Ravi Steel Industries and the same has been adjudicated vide Order-in-original No.54/106/ST/NGP-II/2015/C dated 23/12/2015 and the said order has been accepted by the Revenue. He pointed out that in the said order which has been clearly stated in para 15.2 that the appellant had availed credit after receipt of goods. He pointed out that no penalties were imposed on the appellant in the said show-cause notice though a show-cause notice for imposing penalty was issued to the appellants. He argued that in these circumstances when the said order has been accepted by the Revenue in the same proceedings a differ....