TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1203X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceipt register, ledger account of freight and cartage to prove that the goods had actually been received in the factory - Suppliers of input had in their statements confirmed supply of goods to the assessee - credit rightly allowed. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - APPEAL Nos. E/1789 & 2144/2011-EX[SM] - A/70941-70942/2018-SM[BR] - Dated:- 18-5-2018 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) Shri Kapil Vaish, Chartered Accountant for Assessee Shri Mohammad Altaf, Assistant Commissioner (AR), for Revenue ORDER Per: Anil Choudhary These cross appeals are directed both by appellant-assessee and revenue against Order-in-Appeal No. 29-30-CE/GZB/2011-12 dated 20/04/2011 passed by Commissioner of Centra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he firm. The said show cause notice was adjudicated vide Order- in-Original dated 27.08.2010 wherein the adjudicating authority has confirmed the demand and imposed penalty upon the appellants under Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Act. He observed that there was no evidence to prove that the corresponding inputs had reached to the factory of respondent-assessee. Adjudicating authority has imposed a personal penalty on the Director of the firm under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Aggrieved by the said order, respondent-assessee preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). Before the Commissioner (Appeals), the respondent assessee submitted following documents:- (i) Copies of the releva ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rm. Aggrieved by the said order, both respondent-assessee preferred appeal on the issue of demand of ₹ 1,08,039/- and revenue preferred appeal before this Tribunal on the issue of dropping of demand of ₹ 41,64,258/-. 5. Learned Counsel for the assessee states that the inputs which had been sent for job work, had been received subsequently; during investigation they had reversed the amount of credit of ₹ 1,08,039/- on 31.03.2007; department had not objected to the said credit taken in 2007; in the facts of the case the disallowance of credit by the impugned order becomes infructous; at this stage penalty of ₹ 1,08,039/- upheld by the appellate authority is liable to be set aside keeping in view the facts that the g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
