2012 (11) TMI 1018

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ompany on the basis of invoices issued by M/s Usha Enterprises ( Managing Partner: Shri Ashok Garg), one of the present appellants. The adjudicating authority also imposed equal amount of penalty on M/s Ashok Iron Works Pvt. Ltd, under Rule 15 of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. The decision of the adjudicating authority was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. Both the authorities below took the view that these appellants played a role in fraudulent availment of CENVAT Credit by M/s Ashok Iron Works Pvt. Ltd. On this basis, the appellants were held liable to be penalized under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules 2002. 3. Appeal No. E/1410/2010, which was filed by M/s Ashok Iron Works ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....acquiesced in the factual situation and offered to reverse the credit in question, and they did so. Pursuant to the Order-in-Original, they also paid 25% of the duty as penalty under Section 11AC within 30 days from the date of communication of the said order. This conduct of the party virtually amounted to acceptance of the applicability of the Section 11AC. In this context, it is pertinent to note that the partial payment of penalty was not under protest. This apart, the grounds raised by the assessee in the present appeal are a far cry from the reality which is that the appellant indisputably chose to take CENVAT credit on certain invoices without receipt of the inputs mentioned therein. The show-cause notice issued by the Department cle....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d. and M/s Usha Enterprises on the other is fairly clear. The penalties imposed on them under Rule 26 are sustainable in principle. The written submissions filed by the Managing Director of M/s Aditya Steel Rolling Pvt. Ltd. are to the effect that, when the statements are in conflict with documents (invoices), the latter should be given higher evidentiary value. In the instant case, the assessee did claim CENVAT credit on the strength of invoices issued by M/s Usha Enterprises who gave the statement that they had not supplied any materials under cover of the invoices. Moreover, the assessee voluntarily reversed the irregularly availed CENVAT credit. The assesee's conduct did not in any way conflict with the statements given by the parties w....