2018 (1) TMI 483

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s against the impugned order which upheld the confirmation of demand of duty, interest thereof and imposed penalties on the main appellant M/s. Kaydour Cables (I) Pvt. Ltd. and the individual Shri Ashok Katyal and also upheld the confiscation of the goods and redemption fine imposed in lieu of the same. 4. On perusal of the records, it transpires that the main appellant herein had availed CENVAT credit on the strength of the invoices issued by M/s Synoprene Polymers Pvt. Ltd. without actual receipt of the goods. Investigation was carried out at the end of M/s Synoprene Polymers Pvt. Ltd. and various statements were recorded of the Directors and as a follow up action the main appellant's premises were also checked and statement of the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in statutory records. He would also submit that during the relevant period records of the appellant was audited by the audit parties and no observation was made on this pointe It is also his submission that the investigating authorities completed the investigation and scrutiny of records of M/s Synoprene Polymes Pvt. Ltd. in 2001 itself and did not issue any show cause notice to the main appellant herein till 05/.03/2013. He would submit that the show cause notice issued belatedly after the investigation is over, is hit by limitation as held by the Tribunal in the case of Gammon India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Goa [2002 (146) ELT 173 (Tri.-Mumbai)] which has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme court [2002 (146) ELT A313]. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... as the goods never travelled from the supplier's premises to the appellant. Hence there cannot any goods which to be held liable for confiscation. As regards the finished goods manufactured and cleared by the appellant duty has been discharged by the appellant and the goods are cleared from main-appellant's premises on duty paying documents hence when the goods are not available for confiscation, the question of confiscation does not arise. It is settled law that when the goods are not available for confiscation, question of imposing redemption fine in lieu of confiscation does not arise. In view of this I hold that the findings recorded by both the lower authorities on the finished goods and inputs being liable for confiscation is....