2014 (8) TMI 83

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....and of duty of Rs. 2,69,975/- along with imposition of penalty of identical amount which was originally confirmed by denying them the benefit of Cenvat credit. Further, the Commissioner (Appeals), while upholding the demand of duty of Rs. 5,29,707/-, set aside the penalty imposed upon them. The second appeal being Appeal No. E/ 2979/2012 is against the order of Commissioner (Appeals), which has allowed the refund of duty amount deposited by the appellant for the first appeal, by rejecting the Revenue's appeal inasmuch as the original adjudicating authority has also allowed the refund. 2. After hearing both sides, I find that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of pipes and tubes and their factory which was visited by Central....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd it is possible that number of such vehicles were used for transportation of the material. As such, he accepted the assessees stand that merely because the vehicles numbers were of commercial transport, the said fact alone cannot lead to denial of credit without their being any other evidence. 3. The Revenue's sole reliance is on the said report of the RTO. There is no other evidence to show that the appellants have not received the goods from input supplier. No further investigation stand made by the Revenue either from the owners of the said vehicles or from the transporters. The Revenue has also not made any efforts to establish that if the assessee has not received the inputs in question, from where the inputs, used by them in the....