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 →

Kaydour Cables (I) Pvt. Ltd., Ashok Katyal Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II

2018 (1) TMI 483 - CESTAT MUMBAI

CENVAT credit - fake invoices - receipt of invoices without receipt of goods - whether the penalties imposed on both the appellants is correct or otherwise and whether the goods were held liable for confiscation will stand scrutiny of law or otherwise? - Held that: - In the case of materials on which CENVAT credit was raised without the receipt of the material there cannot be any confiscation of the goods as the goods never travelled from the supplier's premises to the appellant. Hence there .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

not arise. - As regards demands raised, since the appellant has not contested the said demands before the lower authorities and also before this bench, the demand of an amount of ₹ 1,90,983/- stands upheld and having paid the same, the appropriation ordered by the lower authorities is also correct - the equivalent amount of penalty imposed on the main-appellant is correct and does not require any interference. - Equivalent amount of penalty imposed on the individual Shri Ashok Katy .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

espondent - Represented by: Mr. S.J. sahu, Asstt. Commissioner (A.R.) ORDER These two appeals are directed against Order-in-Appeal No.CD/753 & 754/M-11/15 dated 03/09/2015 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai Zone II. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. The appellants herein have filed these appeals against the impugned order which upheld the confirmation of demand of duty, interest thereof and imposed penalties on the main appellant M/s. Kaydour Cables .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ollow up action the main appellant's premises were also checked and statement of the individual herein was also recorded. On completion of the investigation it was noticed that the main appellant had availed ineligible CENVAT credit of ₹ 1,90,983/- with receiving the material/inputs. The adjudicating authority as well as the appellate authority confirmed the demand raised and appropriated the amounts which was paid by the main-appellant, demanded interest and also imposed penalties on .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

and taking me through the impugned order as well as order-in-original submits that the redemption fine imposed is incorrect. It is his submission that the goods were not available hence the question of confiscating the same does not arise. As regards the penalties, it is his submission that the main appellant as well as the individual have been imposed with equivalent amount of penalty which is incorrect. He would draw my attention to the findings recorded by the adjudicating authority that the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ll 05/.03/2013. He would submit that the show cause notice issued belatedly after the investigation is over, is hit by limitation as held by the Tribunal in the case of Gammon India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Goa [2002 (146) ELT 173 (Tri.-Mumbai)] which has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme court [2002 (146) ELT A313]. He submits that the impugned order be set aside and appeals be allowed. 6. Learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, submits that the claim of the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

non-receipt of the materials. He would submit that the appellants were aware that the appellant could avail CENVAT credit without the receipt of the materials and hence the demand for the extended period needs to be upheld along with penalties. 7. On a careful consideration of the submissions made by both the sides, I find that the issue that is to be decided herein is whether the penalties imposed on both the appellants is correct or otherwise and whether the goods were held liable for confisc .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

finished goods manufactured and cleared by the appellant duty has been discharged by the appellant and the goods are cleared from main-appellant's premises on duty paying documents hence when the goods are not available for confiscation, the question of confiscation does not arise. It is settled law that when the goods are not available for confiscation, question of imposing redemption fine in lieu of confiscation does not arise. In view of this I hold that the findings recorded by both the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

arguments putforth by the Learned Counsel may not carry their case any further. It is to be noted that the supplier of the goods M/s Synoprene Polymers Pvt. Ltd., i.e. Director of the said company, have categorically stated that they had supplied the main-appellant herein only the invoices to take the credit and they had returned the amount back to the main -appellant in cash. It is also noticed that the statement of the Director of the main-appellant seems to corroborate the version of the Dire .....

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