2013 (10) TMI 491

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he benefit of Modvat credit of duty, along with imposition of penalty of identical amount. In addition identical penalty stands imposed on the two other appellants who are first stage and 2nd stage dealers. 2. As per facts on record M/s. Faridabad Autocomp Systems Pvt. Ltd. are engaged in the manufacture of motor vehicle parts falling under Chapter 87 of Central Excise tariff Act 1985 and were availing the benefit of Cenvat credit of duty paid on various inputs received from M/s. Super Trading Company, second stage dealer the said second stage dealer in tern received the same from M/s. Ayushi Steels Company Pvt. Ltd., who is registered as a first stage dealer. The said M/s. Ayushi Steels Company procured the goods from the manufacturer M....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ent of the first stage dealer and that of M/s. Khemka Ispat Ltd. and after seeing the same he said deposed that he could say that he did not received those goods which were manufactured and duty paid by M/s. Khemka Ispat Ltd. 6. On the above basis proceeding were initiated for denial of Cenvat credit claim of M/s. Faridabad Autocomp Systems Pvt. Ltd. and for imposition of penalty on various facts noticees. The said proceedings resulted in confirmation of duty and imposition of penalty by the original adjudicating authority and on appeal, upheld by Commissioner (Appeals). Hence, the present appeal. 7. I have heard Shri Rajiv Agnihotry appearing for the appellant and Shri A.K. Jain for the Revenue. 8. As regards the availment of c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Khemka Ispat Ltd. and the statement of their authorized representative and the statement of the first stage dealer. I have gone through the said statement and find that there is no reference to any particular invoices and the same are general statement. The statement of the authorized representative of Khemka reveals that with the loss of business in the year 2002, they entered into an arrangement with the first stage dealer for issuing invoices without the supply of goods so as to reflect some sale purchase books on accounts. Though as per the said statement the arrangement was entered into in the year 2002, I find that the disputed period in the present appeal is February and March 2004. In any case I find that has procured the inputs f....