9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 577X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (AR) for Revenue M/s Keihin FIE Private Limited was subject to proceedings for availment of CENVAT credit of Rs. 15,10,602/- and Rs. 28,45,450/- against supplementary invoices issued by their supplier, M/s Fuel Instruments and Engineers Private Limited, which was alleged to be availed without eligibility on the ground that the supplier had discharged the duty liability only after scrutiny of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aside of penalty. 3. Learned Counsel for assessee draws attention to section 9, of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as it prevailed then, and the provisions of section 11A and section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944, and rule 7, rule 12, rule 13 of CENVAT Credit Rules 2002. It is the contention of the Learned Counsel for the appellant that the decision in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same has not been adjudicated. The allegation of suppression has been considered by the Commissioner of Chennai in his order as under . "The question whether such additional amount of duty become recoverable from the manufacturer on account of short levy by reason of fraud etc. will not have relevance in view of the Settlement order issued by the Settlement Commission. In case, such credit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to evade duty. 8. Admittedly in this case the allegation was made against Ms. CPCL of suppression of facts in the show-cause notice which remained allegation only. Mere allegation does not prove the charge, unless and until it is proved. By approaching to the Settlement Commission, the allegation has not been proved against M/s. CPCL, as the allegation of the show-cause notice remained unprove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
