2017 (12) TMI 698

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nts had availed Cenvat credit of Rs. 17,32,247/-on the input invoices issued by M/s V.N. Impex, Bhiwandi during the period January 2005 to February 2005. Alleging that they have not received the goods from M/s V.N. Impex, but availed credit only on the basis of invoices, demand notice was issued to them on 11.01.2010 which was received by the Appellant on 05.2.2010, proposing recovery of the said credit amount along with interest and penalty. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed with interest and penalty; personal penalty on the Appellant Smt. Vilasben B. Patel, proprietor was also imposed under Rule 15(1) CCR 2004. Aggrieved by the said order, the Appellants filed Appeals before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), who in turn, rejected th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Advocate further submits that in the impugned order, penalty has been imposed under Rule 15(1) of CCR,2004 both on the proprietorship firm as well as on the proprietor, hence the penalty on the proprietor is not tenable in law; also penalty under Rule 15(1) of CCR 2004 is not personal penalty, hence, the imposition of penalty on the proprietor Lt. Smt. Vilasben B. Patel is liable to be set aside. In support, he refers to the Hon'ble Bombay High Court of in the case of C.C., CSI Airport vs. Gyanchand Jain- 2015 (321) ELT 199 (Bom.) 4. Per contra, the ld. A.R. for the Revenue submits that after continuing investigation in March 2005 against M/s V.N. Impex, the input supplier to the Appellant, the Department issued a show cause notice to ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....also investigated. The ld. Advocate has placed a communication addressed to the Range Supdt. (Preventive), Mumbai, Thane dated 16.3.2006 obtained through RTI application, whereunder it has been reported by the Range Supdt., Ankeleshwar, on proper verification against the invoices referred to thereunder that cenvat credit had been correctly availed by the Appellant. It is his contention that from the very beginning they have been claiming that inputs were received by them and utilised in their factory in the manufacture of finished goods. I find that these letters/evidences were procured subsequent to the adjudication proceeding and also appellate proceeding, therefore, the Appellant even though claimed in their letter 12.3.2009, that goods ....