TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (4) TMI 145
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....filed against OIA No. RKA/542-543/SRT-I/2009 dated 30.07.2009 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the OIO No. 154/ADJ/JC-VKS/OA/08-09 dated 30.12.2008. Under the OIO dated 30.12.2008 CENVAT credit of Rs. 10,53,855/- was disallowed to the main appellant along with charging of interest and an equivalent amount of penalty was also imposed upon the main appellant. A penalty of Rs. 1,05,385/- was also imposed upon Shri Biren H. Vekharia, Partner of the main appellant by the Adjudicating authority. 2. Brief facts of the case are that main appellant was availing CENVAT credit and utilizing the same for payment of Central Excise duty on clearance of their final products. On scrutiny of the ER-3/ ER-1 returns filed by the appellant and the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... main appellant had received the cheques against the job charges and excise duty from Shri Girdhari Lal Dadhich and paid the cash in lieu of those cheques to them as no job work had taken place; that he voluntarily tendered the cheque of Rs. 10,85,910/- towards payment of CENVAT credit wrongly availed by them on the basis of the invoices of M/s. Inder Silk Mill/ M/s. I.G. Fabrics. 2.1. After completing the investigation and issue of show cause notice the entire demand of Rs. 10,85,910/- was confirmed and adjusted against the payments made by the appellant. Appeals filed by the appellants were also rejected by the first appellate authority against which the present appeals have been filed. 3. Shri M.N. Saiyed (Consultant) appearing on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the case of Textoplast Industries vs. Additional Commissioner of Customs [ 2011 (272) ELT 513 (Bom)] and argued that in view of the Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Standard Chartered Bank vs. Directorate of Enforcement [2006 (197) ELT 18 (SC)], discussed in Para 17 of the Bombay High Court's decision in the case of Textoplast Industries, penalty is also separately imposable upon the partners. 5. Heard both sides and perused the case records. So far as admissibility of CENVAT credit on invoices of grey fabrics is concerned, it is evident from the evidences on record, especially statement dated 20.04.2005 of Shri Biren H. Vakharia, Partner of the main appellant, that only invoices were received by the appellant without receipt o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aw. These are actual invoices issued by the manufacturer who is duly registered under the Central Excise Act and, therefore, those cannot be said to be forged documents. In our opinion, merely because today, the original manufacturer, who is registered with the Revenue, is not traceable, it does not mean that he did not exist at the relevant point of time. If today, a manufacturer is not available for various reasons that does not mean that at the relevant point of time, such manufacturer who was registered with the Central Excise, did not exist. In our opinion, once receipt of goods is not disputed by a person taking credit and necessary invoices are issued, he is entitled to take credit provided however that he took reasonable steps to en....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gh Court were different then the facts of this case. In the present proceedings appellant was a party to the fraud committed in availing CENVAT credit on grey fabrics which was never received. Accordingly, CENVAT credit has been correctly denied by the lower authorities by invoking extended period. 5.3 So far as extending the option of 25% reduced penalty under Section 11AC to the main appellant is concerned, it is observed that neither the adjudicating authority nor the first appellate authority has allowed this option to the main appellant. Accordingly, main appellant is allowed to avail the option of payment of 25% reduced penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 if the entire amount of duty and interest along with 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ribunal. This Court, in the course of its judgment held that no fault can be found with the view taken by the Tribunal since it is now well settled that when partnership is penalized, separate penalties cannot be imposed on the partners. Evidently, the judgment of the Supreme Court in Standard Chartered Bank v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2006 (197) E.L.T. 18 (S.C.) was not drawn to the attention of the Court. The observation in regard to the 'well settled position' is with respect contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the Standard Chartered Bank case. The judgment of the Supreme Court binds us and we hence have followed the position enunciated therein. Similarly, in the case of Collector of Excise and Customs, Surat-II ....