TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 16X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inst the Bill of Entry the appellant have received the input in their factory and the same have been used. Therefore, the Cenvat Credit should not have been disallowed only for the procedural/clerical lapse. It is the submission of the appellant that the co-relation and the supporting documents submitted by the appellant have not been verified by the adjudicating authority - it is found that even though some procedural lapse has occurred but since the receipt of inputs under the cover of Bill of Entry and use of input in the manufacture of final product was neither alleged nor established by the revenue, the Cenvat credit cannot be denied. Penalty imposed on Shri Hari Nair - HELD THAT:- It is evident from the record that the act of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Audit party. Accordingly, the Show Cause Notice was issued for denial of Cenvat Credit and imposition of penalty. A penalty was also proposed on the employee of the company Shri Hari Nair in terms of Rule 26(2)(ii) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. After consideration of the submissions made by the appellant, the adjudicating authority out of total Credit of ₹ 20,89,744/- proposed to be disallowed in the Show Cause Notice, demand of ₹ 3,98,496/- was set aside in respect of Bill of Entry No. 805042 dated 28.04.2008 and the balance Cenvat Credit of ₹ 16,91,248/- was disallowed in respect of 9 Bill of Entries. Demanded Interest and imposed equal penalty of ₹ 16,91,248/- under Section 11AC. A penalty of ₹ 6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntry and use thereof in the manufacture of final product is not disputed. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments:- VINOD KUMAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF C.EX.DELHI-I, 2006(199) E.L.T. 705 (Tri.-Delhi) Z.U. ALVI vs. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., BHOPAL, 2000(117) E.L.T. 69 (Tribunal) COMMISSIONER OF C.EX., KANPUR vs MANOJ KUMAR PANI, 2010 (260) E.L.T. 92 (Tri.-Del.) KESARWANI ZARDA BHANDAR vs COMMISSIONER OF C.EX., ALLAHABAD, 2013 (289) E.L.T. 331 (Tri.-Del.) NIRMAL INDUCTOMELT PVT. LTD. vs COMMISSIONER OF C.EX., JAIPUR, 2010 (259) E.L.T. 243 (Tri.-Del.) 04. He further submits that all the entries of availment of Cenvat Credit have been recorded in RG23 Part I Part II and ER1 return was filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. It is the submission of the appellant that the co-relation and the supporting documents submitted by the appellant have not been verified by the adjudicating authority. I find that even though some procedural lapse has occurred but since the receipt of inputs under the cover of Bill of Entry and use of input in the manufacture of final product was neither alleged nor established by the revenue, the Cenvat credit cannot be denied. However, the adjudicating authority since not verified all the co-relation given by the appellant, the matter needs to be reconsidered by the adjudicating authority, the other issue of time bar is also kept open. As regard the penalty imposed on Shri Hari Nair, it is evident from the record that the act of alleg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
