TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 36
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al Excise on 01/02.03.2007 visited the factory of appellants for preventive checks. The officers also physically verified the stock of excisable goods in the factory of the appellants unit and found that the appellants have availed Cenvat Credit of Rs. 4,42,514/- on Znic Ingots procured vide invoice nos. 327 dt. 29/12/2006, 376 dt. 29/01/2007 and 417 dt. 26/02/2007 but the GI Furnace in which those goods were intended to be used was not working. Shri K.S. Dahiya, Works Manager of the main appellants failed to show the stoke of these ingots in the factory during the Panchanama and agreed that they had availed Cenvat Credit without receipt of the said Znic Ingots in their factory. during the Panchnama and agreed that they had availed Cenvat C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....OIA, dt.22.06.2011 against which the present appeals have been filed. 3. Shri Rahul Gajera, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants argued that the case has been booked solely on the basis of confessional statement of Shri K.S. Dahiya, Works Manager of the main appellant which was retracted on the very next date. Ld. Advocate made the bench go through paragraphs 22.3.3 and 22.3.4 of the 010 dt. 28.03.2011. It was his case that even the statement dt. 23.09.2009 of Shri Hariom Bansal, General Manager of the main appellant cannot be relied upon as he is partly agreeing to the statement of Shri K.S. Dahiya, Works Manager which has been retracted. 3.1 So far as clandestine manufacture and clearance of 5010 Kg s. of GI Wire, it....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ere actually received in the factory premises also or whether only the documents were received by the main appellant for taking Cenvat Credit. It was his case that under both these situations Cenvat Credit availed by the main appellant was not admissible. Ld. Advocate strongly defended the orders passed by the lower authorities. 5. Heard both sides and perused the case records. 6. So far as clandestine manufacture and clearance of 5010 Kgs. of GI Wire, involving duty of Rs. 32,705/- is concerned, it is observed from the Panchnama dt.02.03.2007 that the same is made only on the basis of a register maintained by an employee of the main appellant at the factory gate. There is no other corroborative evidence in the form of excess / unacco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs for doing certain processes. Lower authorities have, therefore, correctly upheld that Cenvat Credit of Rs. 3,35,142/- is not admissible to the main appellant. 8. So far as imposition of penalties upon the appellants is concerned, Ld. Advocate made the bench go through the order no.A/1605- 1606/WZB/AHD/2009, dt. 21.07.2009 passed by this bench with respect to other appeals filed by the same appellants with respect to confiscation of 4485 Kgs. of GI Wire seized in the factory premises of the main appellant on the date of visit by the central excise officers. Ld. Advocate strongly argued that in this order it has been held by CESTAT that there was no malafide intension on the part of Shri K.S. Dahiya, Works Manager of the main appellant ....