2018 (1) TMI 635

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to M/s Resham Petrotech Ltd. (main appellant) for availing cenvat credit without receipt of inputs and raising the credit based on only two documents and penalties on other appellants. 4. It is the case of the Revenue that their main appellant had availed cenvat credit on only the invoices received from one M/s Turakhia Polymers Pvt. Ltd. (TPPL), who were registered dealer. To make this allegation, and findings in consonance with the allegation, lower authorities have relied upon the statements of the Authorized Signatories of TPPL as also the officers of the main appellant herein. 5. Ld. Counsel submits that when the officers visited the factory premises, they found that there was excess stock of finished goods and raw materials than the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....also submitted that Provision of 9D of Central Excise Act, 1944 is not followed while arriving at the conclusion. 6. Ld. DR on the merits of the case submits that the individuals who are officers of the main appellant have categorically admitted that they have raised the credit based upon only documents and material was not received and it is supported by the statement of the suppliers, responsible officers, would mean that material/ inputs did not accompany the documents to the appellant's premises. It is his further submission that as regards, the Show Cause Notice being time barred cannot the Show Cause Notice dated 31.03.2005 was in respect of the show cause for confiscation of finished goods found excess and the raw materials foun....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the issue in hand in these appeals are the same. With great respect, I reproduce paragraph No. 7 from the decision of Hon'ble High Court in the case of Cona Industries. "7. Having heard both sides, what we have found is that the Tribunal, in the impugned order, has rested its conclusion on all three aspects. However, what was material for our purpose is the undisputed fact that the Preventive Officers started inquiry on 29th June, 1996 and issued a show cause notice dated 26th March, 1997. The adjudication proceedings were held and an order came to passed on 12th December, 1997, which was under challenge before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). This appeal was withdrawn as the respondent had availed of Karvivad Samadhan Scheme....