9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1775X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that M/s. J.V. Seamless India, the appellant No.1 herein, is a partnership firm, engaged in trading of scrap. The said appellant is registered with the Central Excise Department as a dealer of excisable goods. The appellant No.1 issues dealer invoices in passing out the cenvat benefit to the customers. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tice dated 24.12.2013, proposing to deny the cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 1,77,993/-. The said notice also proposed confiscation of the goods and for imposition of penalties on the appellants. The matter was adjudicated vide order dated 10.02.2015, wherein the adjudicating authority has confirmed the proposals made in the show cause notice. On appeal, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) vide the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submissions, the learned Advocate has relied upon the final order No. A/86822-86823/2018 dated 30.05.2018 passed by this Tribunal in the case of Nakoda Ferromet and also final order No. A/86179-86182/2018 dated 13.03.2018 passed by this Tribunal in the case of Sunrise Metal Corporation Ltd. 3. On the other hand, the learned AR appearing for Revenue reiterated the findings recorded in the impugne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment of interest. With regard to invocation of Section 119 ibid is concerned, it is not the case of Revenue that the appellant No.1 had used any other goods to conceal the offending goods i.e. scrap. Thus, confiscation of the said goods is not proper and justified and accordingly, redemption fine cannot be imposed on the appellant. Since the goods are not liable for confiscation, the provisions of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
