TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (3) TMI 415
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Per : Mr. H.K. Thakur; The issue involved in the following appeals is the same, therefore, these are being disposed of by a common order:- S. No. Name of Appellant Appeal No. OIA No. OIO No. (i) M/s. S.S. Alloys Products Pvt. Ltd E/457/2012 42to45/2012(Ahd-I) CE/MM/Commr (A)/ Ahd dated 28.3.2012 10/DC/OA/11 dt. 28.11.11 (ii) Shri Bansilal S. Kabra, Director of M/s. Bansi Metal & Alloys P. Limited E/576/2012 -do- -do- (iii) Shri Sunil Natwar Lal Parikh, Prop. of M/s. Jenil Empire E/564/2012 -do- -do- (iv) M/s. Apex Alloys Steel Pvt. Limited &n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned in the transport documents and invoices are not capable of transporting the huge quantities of inputs involved in the present proceedings. The proprietor of the first stage dealer and the second stage dealer admitted that for the purpose of passing of cenvat credit only the documents were prepared showing movement from the first stage dealer to second stage dealer without actual movement of inputs. It is also the case of the Revenue that second stage dealer have passed on the credit to the manufacturers of M.S. Castings, S.S. Castings, C.I. Castings and S.S. Castings (rough) (Manufacturer recipients) without receipt of inputs. 2. Shri P.V. Sheth (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the appellant at Serial No. (vi) & (vii) of Para -1 abo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cipients. The advocates also borrowed the arguments made by other appellants on the same issue. 5. Advocates of the appellants relied upon the following case laws in support of appellants that neither cenvat credit can be recovered on merits and time bar nor penalty can be imposed upon any of the appellants:- (i) Super Trading Company vs. CCE, Delhi - [2014 (299) ELT 75 (Tri. Del.)] (ii) Shiv Kripa Ispat Pvt. Limited vs. CCE, Nasik - [2009 (235) ELT 623 (Tri. LB)] (iii) CCE, Chandigarh vs. Ansul Steel Scrap Corpn. - [2011 (264) ELT 535 (Tri. Del.)] (iv) Malerkotla Steels & Alloys Pvt. Limited vs. CCE, Ludhiana - [2008 (229) ELT 607 (Tri. Del.)] (v) CCE, Ludhiana vs. Malerkotla Steels & Alloys Pvt. Limited - [2009 (244) ELT....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oys Limited vs. CCE, Chandigarh - [2009 (236) ELT 124 (Tri. Del.)] (ii) Ranjeev Alloys Limited vs. CCE, Chandigarh - [2009 (247) ELT 27 (P&H)] (iii) Viraj Alloys Limited vs. CCE, Thane - [2004 (177) ELT 892 (Tri. Mum.)] (iv) CCE Chandigarh vs. Spark Steel Sales - [2010 (256) ELT 134 (Tri. Del.)] (v) Sagar International Pvt. Limited vs. CCE Delhi - [2010 (280) ELT 451 (Tri. Del.)] (vi) Bhagwati Steel Cast Limited vs. CCE, Nasik - [A/687-700/12/EB/C-II] (vii) CCE Mumbai vs. Kalvert Food India Pvt. Limited - [2011-TIOL-76-SC-CX] (viii) Gautam Trades 7 Agencies vs. CCE, ICD, New Delhi - [2011 (274) ELT 408 (Tri. Del.)] (ix) Naresh J. Sukhwani vs. UOI - [1996 (83) ELT 258 (SC)] (x) Vee Kay Enterprises vs. CCE - [2011 (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ayments made were subsequently compensated by the second stage dealer by cash payment after deducting his commission. In the absence of any such evidence cenvat credit cannot be denied to the manufacturer recipients and it cannot be held that extended period of five years is applicable. There is no evidence on record that manufacturer recipients, other than M/s. Apex Alloys Steel Pvt. Ltd., were aware of the fact that inputs received by them are not the same for which only cenvatable documents were received by the second stage dealer. In view of the case laws relied upon by the appellants it has to be held that cenvat credit is admissible to the manufacture recipients, except in the case of M/s. Apex Alloys Steel Pvt. Limited, on merits as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iew taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana was that when a person was concerned in selling and dealing with the goods which were liable to confiscation under Rule 25(1)(d), Rule 26(1) is also applicable. In this case also, as in the case of M/s. Vee Kay Enterprises, the appellant claimed to have sold goods in respect of which cenvat credit was taken. The Hon'ble High Court observed that a person who proposed to sell the goods cannot say that he was not a person concerned with selling of goods and merely issued the invoices. In view of the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana, the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal cannot be followed. Moreover, the decision of the Hon'ble High Court is subsequent to the d....