2017 (7) TMI 190

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... on 15.12.2009. Out of 8 sheds in the premises, in one of the shed of the registered premises, Coir Mattresses and PU Mattresses of the brand name Hi-Style were being manufactured. On enquiry, Shri Yogesh Kumar Gupta, director of the appellant No.1, informed that the said goods were manufactured in their premies since 1.4.2009 and sold against the invoices of M/s. Life Style Mattresses Pvt.Ltd., (the appellant No.2). The investigations were further conducted and the statements of Shri Shri Yogesh Kumar Gupta, director of the appellant No.1 and Shri R.C.Gupta, director of the appellant No.2 were recorded. In the investigation the following facts were established: (i) M/s.SFPL are engaged in the manufacture of PU Foam & Sheets; (ii) M/s.LMP....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....llant No.3 and No.4 under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals), reduced the duty liability to Rs. 2,75,019/- after allowing the benefit of cum duty price. Penalties on all the appellants were also reduced to Rs. 2,75,019/- each. Aggrieved from the same, the appellants have filed these appeals. 3. Ld.Advocate for the appellants submits that they are not contesting the duty liability and clubbing of the two units. The prayer of the appellant No.1 is that the Cenvat credit on inputs which has been denied by the Commissioner (Appeals) should be allowed to them. He further submits that penalty of 25% already paid within 30 days by the appellant No.1 should be accepted. On behalf of the three other app....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....appellant No.1, that the Cenvat credit of inputs should be allowed to them, I find that the same was denied to them on the ground that the goods were removed clandestinely. The adjudicating authority also observed that the appellant did not bring anything on record to establish the duty paid character of inputs used in the manufacture of finished goods cleared clandestinely. The second observation of Commissioner (Appeals) implies that he was open to their request had they produced duty paid invoice copies or any other admissible evidence of duty paid on the inputs. As has been held by the Tribunal in the case of Sridhar Paints Co.P.Ltd. (supra), the benefit of Cenvat credit on evidence of payment of duty on inputs is allowable even where g....