2017 (8) TMI 1000

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hat the appellants were receiving raw material from M/s Sahni Strips & Wires Pvt. Ltd. Sonipat and they had taken the Cenvat Credit of Rs. 38,23,069/- for the period 29.05.2003 to 08.07.2004 on these inputs. As the process carried out by the appellants did not appear to amount to manufacture, the Department felt that the Cenvat Credit of Rs. 38,23,069/- had been taken wrongly. During the visit, it was also found that the appellants had sent goods to job workers involving credit of Rs. 2,61,373/- which had not been received back after the expiry of the statutory period of 180 days under Rule 4(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. On the day of visit itself, the appellants reversed Rs. 2,61,373/- for the goods sent to job workers and not received b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....taken wrongly. The charge of wrongly credit related to the demand of Rs. 38,23,069/- which has been dropped by the adjudicating authority. He further stated that for appellants No. 2 and 3, besides the fact that no penalty was proposed in relation to the non-receipt of the goods within 180 days, Rule 13 could not be invoked as the Cenvat Credit was not taken by them, which is requirement of Rule 13. He also contended that the penalties in the show cause notice on both the Directors have been proposed in relation to wrong availment of Cenvat Credit on account of the demand of Rs. 38,23,069/-, which had been dropped by adjudicating authority and not contested by the Revenue. He underlined that the period in this case is 2003-2004, which is go....