TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (9) TMI 1475
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 28.11.2013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) wherein penalty of Rs. 2,404,902/- imposed on the appellant under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 in the Adjudication Order dated 7.8.2012 has been upheld. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a second stage dealer duly registered with the Central Excise Department....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....brass pipes, the said first stage dealer had supplied the copper ingots to the present appellant. There is no evidence on record to show that the appellant had purchased brass pipes instead of copper ingots as claimed by the first stage dealer. The investigation conducted by the Central Excise Officials culminated in the adjudication order wherein the penalty was imposed on the appellant as well a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n question, have not arising out of any manufacturing process in the factory of V K Metal Works, the supply of the same to the first stage dealer and subsequently to the second stage dealer, fascinating to the ultimate consumer to take cenvat credit clearly would show the intention of the parties in defrauding the Government Revenue. The entire transactions in the cycle have been made in the paper....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the fraudulent cenvat credit of Central Excise duty indicated in the invoices. The appellant has also not specifically provided any evidence to counter the allegation of the Central Excise Department that the disputed goods have been received by it and supplied to the buyers, entitling them to take cenvat credit. Therefore I am convinced that imposition of penalty in the adjudication order under....