2015 (6) TMI 618

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 5,86,793/- has been confirmed against the main appellant M/s Summet Industries under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 alongwith interest and a penalty of Rs. 5,86,793/- has also been imposed upon the main appellant under Rule 15(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rule 2014 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act 1954. Penalties of Rs. 3 lac each has been imposed upon Shri R B Jain and Shri R S Bhati, Partner & Manager-cum-Authorised Signatory of the main appellant respectively, under the provisions of Rule 15(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 and also Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules 2002. 2. Shri S J Vyas, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellants argued that issue involved in these appeals is denial of Cenvat Credit to....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of raw materials or any seizer of raw materials diverted elsewhere. 4. Shri G P Thomas, Authorised Representative, appearing on behalf of the Revenue made the Bench go through the delivery Challans in the appeal memorandum and argued that no transportation documents have been furnished by the appellant to support their case that actually the goods were transported on payment of freight. It was, therefore, his case that the inputs were never sent for job work. 5. As a counter to the argument made by the Authorised Representative for Revenue, Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant made the Bench to go through the statement dated 27.1.2005 of the job worker and pointed out that as per answer to question No 14 of the statem....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....[1996(82)ELT.129(Trib)] is relevant and is reproduced below: "14.When the main allegations as to unauthorised? importation is not sustainable, the role allegedly played by the other individuals cannot tantamount to attracting the provisions of Section 112 of the Act. Going by the series of the statements recorded and different versions given, same grounds may be available to suspect something unusual or coloured in the entire episode. The role played by Mr. R.K. Jain, as disclosed in the statement of R.P. Mehta as also the admissions of Mr. R.P. Mehta, as to his involvement, appears rather strange. However, the Tribunal has to adjudicate upon given set of documentary devidence, and to examine whether there is any violation of the P....