2017 (5) TMI 643

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of Rs. 7,17,734/- based on Bill of Entry No.426218 dated 16.05.2005 without actual receipt of the goods into their factory and thus contravening the provisions of Rules 3 of CENVAT Credit Rules. After due process of law, the original authority confirmed the demand along with interest and also imposed equal amount of penalty besides imposing separate equal penalty on Sh. V.K. Janaki Ram. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the same, but however reduced the penalty imposed on Sh. V.K. Janaki Ram as Rs. 2 lakhs. Hence these appeals. 2. On behalf of the appellant, the Ld. Counsel Sh. Y. Sreenivasa Reddy submitted that Sh. V.K. Janaki Ram was Managing Partner of the appellant firm and also Managing Director of Jagadamba Engineering Pv....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cumentary evidence put forward by the Department to establish that appellants have indulged in fraudulent availment of credit without receiving the inputs. Moreover, the very same evidence has been analysed by the Tribunal, in the case of M/s Akshay LPG Valves and M/s Jagadamba Engineering Pvt. Ltd, who were also issued Show Cause Notice's upon the same investigation. As per Final Order No.A/30039-30042/2016 dated 19.01.2016 the Tribunal had in the said appeals set aside the impugned order's allowing the appeals. The Ld. Counsel therefore pleaded to set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. 3. On behalf of the Department, the Ld. AR, Sh. Nagraj Naik reiterated the findings in the impugned order. He submitted that one Dilip Kothari....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... not been issued a Show Cause Notice to these proceedings and is not made party to the proceedings. Sh. Satish Agarwal who is said to be the transporter has retracted his statements before the Metropolitan Magistrate Apart from, such statements which have been retracted or contradicted there is no iot of evidence to establish that the appellants indulged in fraudulent availment of CENVAT credit. Further, the appellants have produced the lorry receipt and weighment slips to show receipt of goods in the factory besides entries in RG-23 register to show that such goods have been received in the factory. 5. the Tribunal in the Final Order stated (supra) had occasion to analyse the very same evidence in the appeal filed by related appellants vi....