2011 (7) TMI 626

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ev, SDR PER: ASHOK JINDAL The appellants are in appeal against the impugned order for demanding of duty alongwith interest and equivalent amount of penalty on the allegation that the appellants have wrongly taken the cevnat credit on the invoices without receiving inputs physically in the factory.  2. The brief facts of the case are that on gathering information, the factory premises....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t and equivalent of amount of penalty under Section 11AC ibid. The adjudicating order was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant are in appeal before this Tribunal. 3. Learned Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellants and submitted that the appellants have taken credit on the strength of duty paid documents against which they have physically rece....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sion of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Mumbai vs.Prakash Industrial Corporation reported in 2009 (248) ELT 536, in the case of Motherson Sumi Electric Wires vs. CCE, Noida reported in 2009 (246) ELT 651 and CCE, Chandigarh vs. Shakti Roll Cold Strips Pvt.Ltd. reported in 2008 (229) ELT 661 (P & H). He further submitted that the statement of the supplier is not relevant to the impugned period as ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of the submissions made by both sides, I find that in this case, the demand has been raised only on mere statement of the inputs supplier that he has not supplied the inputs and he has not manufactured the same in his statement dated 26.5.2006. In fact, the appellants have taken the credit on the invoices raised during the period October, 2003 to August, 2004. As observed by this Tribunal in the ....