9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 761X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quently the same has been demanded and penalty has been imposed on the appellants. 2. The facts of the case are that M/s Ashirwad Ispat Udyog issued invoices to M/s Ashirwad Ispat RYP Pvt Ltd. During the course of investigation goods were found physically excess as compared with statutory record in the stocks. Therefore, the proceedings were initiated against the appellant for excess goods found to deny Cenvat credit to the appellant and to impose penalty on the other appellants. 3. In earlier round of litigation, the Tribunal has passed the following order; "3. Further, I find that the allegation against M/s Ashirwad Ispat (RYP) Pvt. Ltd. is that they have received goods on fake invoice/documents issued by Ashirwad Ispat Udyog. The con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... limitation. And said issue has not been considered by the adjudicating authority in true spirit. Therefore, on limitation itself the impugned order is to be set aside. 6. On the other hand learned Authorised Representative supported the impugned order and submits that at the best, the matter can be remanded to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration of the Tribunal's earlier remand order dated 05.02.2018. 7. Heard the parties and considered the submissions. 8. I find that during the course of proceedings before the adjudicating authority, the appellant has taken a ground that on the same invoices to deny Cenvat credit for the period March to April, 1994, a Show Cause Notice was issued to the appellant on 01.07.1994 and on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in a way to say that an earlier show cause notice has been issued to Noticee No. 4 for denial of Modvat credit in respect of some of the impugned documents. But, the earlier notice dated 01.07.1994 was issued on the ground that the consignments from manufacturer were split by the trader (Noticee No. 1), which was improper and secondly, there was addition in the name of goods, procured and sold by Noticee No. 1. The instant demand cum show cause notice dated 28.02.1996 was issued pursuant to the inquiry with Noticee No. 1 and recovery of incriminating records from them. When analysed, it is seen that the allegations in second case has arisen on revelation of illicit activity being carried out by Noticee No. 1 and this case had revealed fresh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
