2012 (2) TMI 415

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....during the period from July, 2003 to 31-1-2006, they took Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 72,56,374/- in a wrong and fraudulent manner on the basis of invoices for PVC compound issued by M/s. Kashish Products Impex Pvt. Ltd. (KPIPL) without actually receiving any material. The Commissioner vide order-in-original No. 12/2009, dated 27-10-2009 had - (a)     confirmed the Cenvat credit demand of Rs. 72,56,374/- against the appellant company along with interest under Rule 12 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002/Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with proviso to Section 11A(1) and Section 11AB of Central Excise Act, 1944; (b)     imposed penalty of equal amount i.e. Rs. 72,56,374/- on the appellant com....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Tribunal's observations in the impugned order that KPIPL could not have used CP-172 SG resin in the manufacture of PVC compound, as this resin is used only for manufacture of battery separators and, hence, the invoices regarding supply of PVC compound issued by KPIPL to the appellant are bogus, is without any basis, as the Revenue itself has admitted that this resin to certain extent, is used in the manufacture of certain PVC compounds, that the Tribunal has ignored the fact that during visit by the Revenue officers to the factory of KPIPL on 30th July, 2004, the factory was found to have been functioning and, therefore, the conclusion that there was no manufacturing in the factory of KPIPL, which is based on a subsequent visit, is without ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....-7-2011 on the ground that there are mistakes apparent from record in the stay order and the prayer in the application is for rectification of the order by withdrawing the same, the application does not mention as to under which provision of the Central Excise Act, the same has been filed. If, it is treated as application for rectification of the mistakes apparent from record under Section 35C(2), the same would not be maintainable as what Section 35C(2) provides is rectification/amendment of an order passed by this Tribunal under sub-section (1) of Section 35C, while the impugned order is not an order passed under Section 35C(1), but an order passed under Section 35F on the question of waiver of pre-deposit. 5. Moreover, on the per....