2018 (1) TMI 416

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....espondent alleging that they had taken credit without receipt of goods. The demand was originally confirmed by the original adjudicating authority against which the appellant approached the Settlement Commission which settled the matter with duty amount of Rs. 28,36,864/- and penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs on the respondents and penalty of Rs. 1.00 lakh on Shri Rajesh. The respondent challenged the said order before the Hon'ble High Court which set aside the said order of the Settlement Commission and remanded the matter back to Settlement Commissioner. The Settlement Commission heard the matter and remanded the case back to the jurisdictional Central Excise Officers. The matter was adjudicated again by the Additional Commissioner and the demand wa....

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 goods were not received by the respondent and therefore, the credit was sought to be denied. He pointed out that the Commissioner has accepted that the respondent had taken credit in respect of 12 invoices wrongly. He argued that in this case, the respondent had shown that the vehicle has travelled between Delhi to Jalna four times within two days. He pointed out that having upheld this demand he could have considered that the respondents were in practice of availing credit without receiving goods. He pointed out that in respect of invoices where the demands have been set aside by the Commissioner following evidence was produced before him: (i) Transport lines in which the goods have been claimed to have been transported are non-e....