2015 (6) TMI 779

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Sri Vikrant Kacuria & Sri Deepak Gupta, Advs. ORDER Per: P K Das: 1. These appeals are arising out of a common order and therefore, all are taken up together for disposal. By the impugned order, Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalties on the respondents imposed under Rule 173Q of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. 2. Heard both the sides and perused the records. 3. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that on 12.08.1999, the Central Excise officers, during the visit at the premises of M/s Vipul Steel & Agro Industries (in short 'the said unit') registered with Central Excise department, found that the said unit availed MODVAT Credit on Iron and Steel items for manufacturing Washers, Tikki, Hook....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gainst the manufacturers were dropped. It is submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) rightly set aside the penalties as the proceedings initiated against M/s DCM Engineering Products, who had utilized the credit on the basis of invoices issued by the Respondents had been dropped by the Department. In this context, they placed the copy of the Order-in-Original No.44/AC/2004 dt. 19.03.2004 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, whereby the show cause notice issued to M/s DCM Engineering was dropped. They also relied upon the judgment dt.19.05.2014 in CEA No.72 of 2011 (CCE Chandigarh-I Vs M/s Mini Steel Traders) of Punjab & Harayana High Court, whereby the Revenue's appeal was rejected on the identical issues. 6. Aft....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ld be generated in the factory of the manufacturer supplier or not is not the concern of the Appellants. The Appellants were supposed to know about the existence of the firm and about having VSAI's registration from the Central Excise Department. The further contention of the Appellants is that the Department has not disputed the following facts:- i) Payment for purchase of inputs has been made through cheques and demand draft. ii) The inputs in question have been used in the manufacture of final products, which have been cleared on payment of duty. iii) The Department has not been able to prove that any other alternative raw material was received and used in the final products. The above contention of the Appellants are ....