TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (7) TMI 224
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orded the statements of the employee of the appellants, broker of M/s. Annapurna and Angadias of Ludhiana. 2. A show cause notice dated 31.03.2008 was issued proposing demand of duty of Rs. 11,59,698/- alongwith interest and to impose penalty on the ground that the appellant wrongly availed CENVAT credit on the strength of duty paying documents of M/s. Annapurna, without actual receipt of inputs. It has also proposed to appropriate amount deposited by the appellant during the course of investigation. The adjudicating authority denied the CENVAT credit and confirmed the demand of duty alongwith interest and imposed penalty of equal amount. It has also appropriated the amount deposited by the appellant, during investigation. By the impugned order, Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order and rejected the appeal filed by the appellant. 3. The learned Advocate on behalf of the appellant submits that the appellant purchased the materials from M/s. Annapurna and directly sent to the Job Workers. After processing of the raw materials, received from the input suppliers, the Job Workers delivered the processed materials to the appellant alongwith Challans and Bills of labour c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and M/s. Ex-tube Industries, Ahmedabad for the purpose of processing. It is stated that the job workers were used to receive the raw material directly by contacting the manufacturer/ suppliers. The raw material namely Copper Wire Bars, Copper Ingots were received by the job workers directly from the manufacturer/ suppliers and the job workers were processing the material and then returned the copper tubes to the appellant. The appellants were carrying out the manufacturing process on the semi finished goods, which were either exported or cleared in the domestic market on payment of duty, in compliance with the Central Excise law. The Central Excise officers visited the appellant s factory on 11.01.2007 and recorded the statements of the employee of the appellant Company. It has been alleged that the appellant availed cenvat credit against the invoices of M/s. Annapurna, without actual receipt of the goods. The demand of cenvat credit was raised in respect of five invoices during the period December 2003 to January 2006. 6. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the investigation revealed that M/s. Annapurna was not having any plant or machinery to manufacture the copper bars/ i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the broker of M/s. Annapurna. They gave order for supply of invoices of Copper Ingots and Copper Wire Bars (Ingots), with details like ECC No. Company s address, Commissioner of Service Tax No. etc., necessary for issuing Central Excise invoices and those invoices alongwith Lorry Receipts were received. He also stated that they have taken correct credit after receiving the material from the job-workers. 8. On perusal of the Compilation of documents, showing correlation of the goods received from M/s. Annapurna and return of semi-finished goods, I find that the appellant had produced copy of invoices of M/s. Annapurna along with transport documents and Bills of labour charges paid to the job workers. For example, the appellant availed credit on Copper Wire Bars to the quantity of 10963Kgs, vide Central Excise Invoice No. 415 dated 05.11.2003 of M/s. Annapurna, transported by New Satkar Tempo Transport Union vide Bilty No. 239 dated 05.11.2003 which was delivered to the job worker vide Central Excise Challan No. 609 dated 13.11.2003, in compliance with the provisions of Central Excise Rules. The job worker issued Bills for labour charges alongwith delivery challans issued from tim....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....edly, the said appellant could not have manufactured final product, without the receipt of the inputs, in which case revenue findings that no inputs were actually received cannot be upheld. Recipient of the inputs is expected to know his immediately supplier and there is no further requirement to find out as to from where his supplier has procured the inputs. Accordingly, I set aside the confirmation of demand of duty and imposition of penalty of M/s. Faridabad Autocomp Systems and Super Trading Company. As regards, the imposition of penalty of M/s. Ayushi Steels Company, I find that they have taken and alternative plea that even if the Revenue s case accepted that they dealt only with the invoices without actually dealing with the goods even then no penalty can be imposed upon them inasmuch as the provision for imposition of penalty on the dealers were introduced vide Notification No. 8/2007-C.E., (N.T.) dated 1-3-2007. Inasmuch as the period for the present case is prior to the said date, I set aside the penalty imposed upon M/s. Ayushi Steels Company Pvt. Limited also. 9. The Hon ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CCE, Chandigarh vs. Shakti Roll Cold Strips Pvt. Lim....