TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1159X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould to the respondents; therefore, the said statement of driver is admissible by holding that the Cenvat credit of invoice bearing vehicle no. HR-38N- 1285 and HR-38M-2282 is denied in the case of M/s Novice Polymers and M/s Airvision India Pvt Ltd respectively - CENVAT Credit rightly denied. In the case of vehicle no. RJ14-1G-7077, there is categorical statement of the owner of the vehicle, that vehicle was carrying the goods from Yamuna Nagar to Jaipur through Harsh Roadlines, Yamuna Nagar who has brought GR issued by Harsh Roadlines as an evidence for movement of the vehicle. The said GR has not been controverted by the respondents with any tangible evidence - credit rightly denied. In the case of vehicle no. DL-1M-1360, the vehic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the search was conducted on 30.10.2009, physical stock, raw material or finished goods were verified. They were found to be tallied. Certain records were resumed and after conclusion of the investigation, it was alleged that the respondents were received only the cevatable invoices without receiving the goods in question. Therefore, the show cause notices were issued to the respondents to deny Cenvat credit on the strength of the invoices, consequently, to demand of duty along with interest and to impose penalty on the respondents. The adjudicating authority denied the Cenvat credit and confirmed the demand of duty alongwith interest and equivalent amount of penalties were also imposed. Aggrieved from the order, the respondents filed the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts of drivers have been controverted by the respondents by producing various vouchers which certified that the respondents have received the inputs but in specific instances like in the case of truck no. HR-38N-1285 and HR- 38M-2282, the vehicles are stated to refrigerate van. Admittedly, the refrigerated van cannot transport the goods i.e. plastic mould to the respondents; therefore, the said statement of driver is admissible by holding that the Cenvat credit of invoice bearing vehicle no. HR-38N- 1285 and HR-38M-2282 is denied in the case of M/s Novice Polymers and M/s Airvision India Pvt Ltd respectively. Therefore, the impugned order qua M/s Novice Polymers and M/s Airvision India Pvt Ltd is modified by denying the Cenvat credit on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on India Pvt Ltd. 10. As M/s DR Polymers found to be involved for issuing the impugned invoices, in that circumstance, M/s DR Polymers to be penalized under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, but M/s DR Polymers is a company and having no knowledge or benefit arriving out of the activity; therefore, in the light of the decision of the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Steel Tubes of India Ltd vs. CCE, Indore 2007 (217) ELT 506 (Tri. LB), the penalty is not imposable on a juristic person under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Therefore, penalty on M/s DR Polymers is not imposable. Only for that limited purpose, the impugned order is upheld. 11. In view of the above discussion, the following order is p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
