TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appellant wins appeal, demand confirmation and penalty set aside due to lack of evidence.</h1> <h3>M/s. Gian Castings Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-l</h3> M/s. Gian Castings Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-l - TMI Issues:Demand confirmation and penalty imposition based on credit availed without receiving inputs.Analysis:The judgment by Ms. Archana Wadhwa addressed the issue of confirming a demand of Rs. 1,94,771 against the appellant and imposing an identical penalty due to the denial of credit availed on the grounds of not receiving the actual inputs, only the invoices. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing ingots, had been availing Cenvat credit on duty paid for raw materials received from a registered dealer, Sidh Balak Enterprises, through their invoices. Investigations revealed that Sidh Balak Enterprises had been procuring goods from Jay Aay Alloys Pvt. Ltd. through Ved Trading Company without actual clearance of goods. However, investigations at the manufacturer's end, Jay Aay Alloys Pvt. Ltd., showed no actual clearance of goods, only issuing invoices. The appellant's situation differed as the actual manufacturers of the inputs were Ruby Stnps Pvt. Ltd. and Bee Cee Steels, with no investigations conducted at their end. Sidh Balak Enterprises' statement only implicated Jay Aay Alloys, not the present manufacturers, providing insufficient evidence that the goods did not reach the appellant.In a significant reference to a previous case, the judgment cited the Tribunal's decision in M/s. Talson Mill Store vs. CCE Ludhiana, where a similar demand confirmation was set aside. Following this precedent, the judgment by Ms. Archana Wadhwa set aside the impugned order confirming the demand and penalty imposition on all the appellants, ultimately allowing the appeal. The decision was made after a thorough analysis of the investigations, discrepancies in the supply chain, and legal precedents, ensuring a fair and just outcome based on the available evidence and legal principles.
TaxTMI 