TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (7) TMI 874
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....filed these appeals against the Commissioner (Appeals) order No. No. SB/13-14/Th-I-2009 dated 29.06.2009 whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the lower adjudicating authority's order. Since the issue involved in these appeals is common, they are taken up for disposal together. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of M.S.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....judicating authority's order. Hence these appeals. 4. The contention of the appellants is that the appellants availed CENVAT credit amounting to Rs.452771/-. It was not their intention to avail CENVAT credit without valid document if at all it is a genuine mistake. With regard to the verification of genuineness of the invoices at the suppliers end by the Central Excise authorities, the lear....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lso found in the office of the appellant.The appellant cannot disown the fraud committed by his employees and the Tribunal is the final fact finding authority. Shri K.R. Nair, Manager in his statement recorded under Section 14 admitted that he agreed that a total production of 1266 M.T has been suppressed in the month of December, 2000 and January, 2001 were ready to pay the Central Excise duty in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation. So far as the contention of the learned SDR that the Tribunal is final fact finding authority,undisputedly the Tribunal is a final fact finding authority, however, it does not mean performing the role of the lower authorities, the role which is not at all performed by them (the said authorities). As regard the suppression of stock of 9.975 also I find force in the contention of the learned ....