TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 471X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nor any document was recovered from the appellant’s premises. In such case, without carrying out any investigation, the person cannot be implicated for making any charge against the person. Only on the basis that the appellants were not interrogated without any investigation against them, they are not liable for penalty either under Rule 25(1)(d) or Rule 26(2) of the CER, 2002 - Appeal allowed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bogus. Accordingly, it was alleged that the goods have not been transported from first stage dealer to the present appellant M/s Megol Petrochem Pvt. Ltd. and subsequent to manufacturers (buyers). Accordingly, show-cause notices were issued wherein statements of the Director of M/s Petrolube India Ltd., who was first stage dealer, was recorded. Accordingly, it was proposed to deny the CENVAT Credi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and recording any statement, the appellant could not have been implicated in the entire case. He further submits that even though the LRs were found fake, but there is no evidence that the goods were not transported by the appellant to the buyer of the goods, who availed the CENVAT Credit. In such case, the appellant should not be imposed any penalty. He placed reliance on the following judgments ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d CENVAT Credit on such invoice. The basis of such allegation is LRs used for transportation which were found fake and bogus and transportation was not done. I find that for the purpose of penalizing the appellant, no investigation was carried out against the appellant such as, neither any statement was recorded nor any document was recovered from the appellant s premises. In such case, without ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
