Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Megol Petrochem Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur

2018 (1) TMI 471 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Penalties - CENVAT credit - LRs used for transportation which were found fake and bogus and transportation was not done - Held 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 carrying out any investigation, the person cannot be implicated for making any charge against the person. - Only on the basis that th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ssed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby penalty imposed under Rule 25(1)(d) and Rule 26(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Section 11AC (1)(b) has been imposed. 2. The appellants are second stage dealer purchasing the goods from first stage dealer namely, M/s Petrolube India Ltd. In an investigation by DGCEI, New Delhi, it was found that the transport Lorry Receipts (LR) used for transportation of the goods were found fake and bogus. Accordingly, it was alleged that the goods have .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

so proposed. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of CENVAT Credit and imposed penalty upon the appellant under Rule 25(1)(d) read with Rule 26(2) of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Being aggrieved by the OIO, the appellants filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who rejected the appeal. Therefore, the appellants are before me. 3. Shri Anil Mishra, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that for imposition of penalty on the appellant, no investigation was carried out at their .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

placed reliance on the following judgments: - (a) Tulsi Extrusion Ltd. & Mr. Mukesh Sangla Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik - 2015 (11) TMI 1037-CESTAT-Mum. (b) Bajrang Castings Pvt. Ltd. & Mr. Amit R Bhasin Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedbad-II - 2015 (7) TMI 669-CESTAT-AHMD. (c) G.S. Alloy Castings Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Guntur - 2016 (331) ELT 310 (Tri-Bang). 4. Shri S.V. Nair, learned Assistant Commissioner (AR) and Shri M.R. Melvin, Supdt. (AR) .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version