2013 (11) TMI 846

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... CENVAT Credit of Rs.8,62,554/- and during audit of the appellant and subsequent verifications, it was observed by the officers that appellant has taken the credit on the basis of extra copy invoices, availed CENVAT Credit on capital goods as inputs, availed credit on the basis of invoices which are in the name of appellant's other units and also availed excess credit over and above the admissible credit. 2. Shri Rahul Gajera (Adv.), appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that appellant has got five units at different locations and it does not matter to which unit the CENVAT Credit taking document pertains. It was also argued that out of total CENVAT Credit of Rs.8,62,554/- claimed, an amount of Rs.6,52,095/- is pertaining to capita....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....en established by the appellant. 4. Heard both sides and perused the case records. It is observed from Para 3.2 of the OIO dt.15.03.2010 that credit was proposed to be denied to the appellant for the following discrepancies:- i) Availment of CENVAT Credit on the basis of extra copy of the invoice as well as on the basis of invoices wherein consignee is other than of assessee i.e. M/s IDMC Ltd., Unit-I, Anand. ii) Availment of CENVAT Credit on the basis of Original Invoice, but no documents regarding receipt of the materials in the factory. They availed credit without having any valid duty paying documents i.e. the document based on which the credit taken is not available. iii) Availment of CENVAT Credit on capital goods as input....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f the appellant has not been established by the appellant. In view of the above observations, CENVAT Credit has been correctly denied by the lower authorities to the appellant, as its receipt and use in the factory of the appellant is not established. The case laws relied upon by the appellant are thus not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. Appeal of the appellant to this extent is rejected. 5. So far as imposition of penalty under Rule 15(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, read with Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944, is concerned, appellant has argued that there was no mis-statement and suppression on their part with intention to evade any duty. It has also been argued that since the entire inadmissible CENVAT ....