Tribunal grants relief in appeal, finding no fraud or violations.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing all three appeals filed by the appellants. The Tribunal found no evidence implicating the appellants in fraudulent activities, noted their compliance with CENVAT Credit Rules, and the absence of serious violations. Relying on a Division Bench decision, the Tribunal concluded the appellants were not liable for the demand and penalties imposed, providing consequential relief.

---

---

Issues involved:
1. Appeal against the common impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the Order-in-Original and rejecting three appeals.
2. Allegations of passing inadmissible CENVAT credit by registered dealers to manufacturers and dealers without delivering goods.
3. Investigation revealing passing of CENVAT credit to appellants based on invoices from other companies.
4. Ex-parte order by adjudicating authority without supplying relied upon documents or allowing cross-examination.
5. Appellants' contention of no connivance with importer or supplier, proper record-keeping, and compliance with CENVAT Credit Rules.
6. Applicability of judicial precedents and Division Bench decisions in similar cases.

Detailed analysis:
1. The appellants challenged the impugned order that confirmed demand and penalties against them. The investigations revealed the passing of CENVAT credit to the appellants based on invoices from other companies involved in fraudulent activities. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand without supplying relied upon documents or allowing cross-examination, leading to the appellants' contention of procedural violations and lack of consideration of submissions.

2. The appellants argued that they had no involvement with the fraudulent activities and maintained proper records, including statutory records and payments through banking channels. They contended that discrepancies at the third party end should not affect their CENVAT credit eligibility. The appellants cited judicial precedents supporting their case and highlighted the lack of serious violations against them in the show cause notice.

3. The Tribunal found that the impugned order violated statutory provisions and that decisions relied upon by the appellants were applicable. The Tribunal noted that the appellants had not violated CENVAT Credit Rules, maintained proper records, and paid duties on final products. The Tribunal also observed that the allegations primarily targeted another individual not directly connected to the appellants.

4. Relying on a Division Bench decision, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing all three appeals filed by the appellants. The Tribunal concluded that the appellants were not liable for the demand and penalties imposed, providing them with consequential relief.

5. The Tribunal's decision was based on the lack of evidence implicating the appellants in fraudulent activities, proper compliance with CENVAT Credit Rules, and the absence of serious violations on their part. The Division Bench decision and subsequent reliance by the Commissioner (Appeals) supported the Tribunal's ruling in favor of the appellants.

---