TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 842X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ainst the appellant on the ground that they have fraudulently passed on the credit without supplying the goods. The common evidence such as bill conditioning ledger, statements, etc were also considered. As the Tribunal has come to a conclusion that these evidences are not sufficient and accordingly, the charge of Shah Foils Ltd. that they have only issued the bills and not supplied the goods were not accepted by the Tribunal - In the present case, there are various traders in whose name the Cenvatable invoices were issued. In the case which arose out of same evidence, therefore, in the present case also, the penalty imposed on the appellants will not sustain - penalty set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against and allowed the appeal. It is his submission that since the Tribunal has not considered the evidence sufficient to establish the charge against the present appellant as well as other parties in the aforesaid judgment. this case being raised on the same evidence will also not stand. He also placed reliance on the following judgments: 1. Tahnee Heights Co-op, Housing Society Ltd. vs UOI 2015 (40) STR 453 (Bom.) 2. Commissioner vs Dhruv Dyesuff Pvt Ltd. 2016 (339) ELT A 131 (Guj.) 3. CCE vs Kuber Tobacco India Ltd. 2016 (338) ELT 113 (T) 4. Jindal Drugs Pvt. Ltd. vs UOI 2016 (340) ELT 67 (P H) 5. Dhakad Metal Corporation Vs CCE 2015 (330) ELT 561 (T) 6. Steel Tubes of India vs CCE 2007 (217) ELT 506 (Tri- L.B.) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to imposition of penalty under Rule 26 against the appellant on the ground that they have fraudulently passed on the credit without supplying the goods. This Tribunal in the case of Shah Foils Ltd. (supra) dealt with the specific issue involved in the present case in para 25 of the above order, which is reproduced below: 25. As regard impugned Order-in-appeals passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Rajkot and Surat, we find that the impugned orders has relied upon the ledger Bill condition to hold that only bills were supplied without any actual delivery. Also the statements of the brokers and the intermediary dealers and buyers has been relied upon. The Appellant has pointed out that the findings are merely on basis of statements and wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant M/s SFL issued only invoices without actual clearances. We therefore hold that the impugned Orders-in-appeals in as much as it imposed penalty upon the Appellant under rule 26 (2) are not sustainable. We therefore set aside the impugned order in as much as it imposes penalty against the Appellants. From the above finding, it is clear that the same issue has been considered in detail. The common evidence such as bill conditioning ledger, statements, etc were also considered. As the Tribunal has come to a conclusion that these evidences are not sufficient and accordingly, the charge of Shah Foils Ltd. that they have only issued the bills and not supplied the goods were not accepted by the Tribunal. The aforesaid judgment of the Tri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Engineers. It is also observed that the statement can be used only against those persons whose consignments the author of these statements were concerned with. However, there is no inculpatory statements as regard the transaction made between M/s Shah Foils Ltd. and M/s Sun Textile Engineers, therefore, the heavy reliance made by Learned Commissioner (Appeals) only on the statements is not correct. There is no dispute that the goods invoiced under eight invoices were transported and the same was received by M/s Sun Textile Engineer. The physical receipt of the goods have not been questioned in the entire case. The goods have been recorded in the books of M/s Sun Textile Engineers. The payment against the supplies were shown in the books, e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
