TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (12) TMI 1705
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rther whether penalty is sustainable. 3. The brief facts of the case are that there was inspection in the factory of the assessee by Central Excise Officer on 22^nd August, 2008. In the course of stock taking of raw material and finished goods, it appeared to Revenue that the stock in the premises of appellants, inputs scrap is mainly market scrap whereas most of the invoices available with the assessee for purchase of scrap showed purchase of industrial scrap on which duty had been paid and accordingly, the appellants had taken the Cenvat credit. The total scrap in the factory was weighed by resorting to physical weighment on the weigh bridge. The same was found to be 576MT. 4. The scrap available in the factory was not found to be t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the appellant is not purchasing dutiable scrap but purchasing cenvatable invoices and thereby claiming in-eligible Cenvat credit. Show cause notice dated 9^th February, 2009 was issued with the corrigendum dated 30^th April, 2009 requiring the appellants as to why in Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 16,18,834/- availed on the said scrap (507.265MT) procured from market be not disallowed, and with further, proposal to appropriate the matching amount, already debited or deposited with further proposal for interest and penalty under Rule 15 of CCR, 2004. Further proposal to confiscate the scrap found at the 507.265MT. and penalty on the Director Karun Juneja was also proposed. 7. Another show cause notice dated 29^th February, 2012 was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e for penalty U/R-15. The penalty was also proposed on the director Karun Juneja. Vide separate Orders-in-Original dated 29^th January, 2010, Additional Commissioner confirmed the demand of Rs. 16,18,834/- appropriating the same with the amount deposited along with interest and further equal amount of penalty was imposed on the appellants (Company) under Rule 15 of CCR, read with Section 11AC of the Act. Further the scrap of iron & steel seized, 507.265MT. was confiscated. Further penalty was imposed on the Director Mr. Karun Juneja. Vide another Order-in-Original No.90 dated 30^th March, 2013, another show cause notice dated 29^th February, 2012 was adjudicated and the authority confirmed the proposed demand of Rs. 25,57,554/- with interes....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rther said that Revenue has not done any investigation from the supplier of the inputs. He further said, that deposit of duty in the course of investigation, by the appellants (company) in good faith to avoid litigation, does not amount to admission of taking ineligible Cenvat credit. It is further stated that the in view of the fact of deposit already made of the Cenvat credit, at the time of inspection, the issue of the first show cause notice is vitiated and the impugned orders are fit to be set aside along with penalty. So far as the second show cause notice is concerned, it is not the case of Revenue that appellants have got received goods in the factory. It is admitted that the appellants on receipt of scrap in the factory, they have ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t Credit Rules, 2004. It is further urged that no investigation is done at the end of supplier of inputs. However, taking notice of the fact that the assessee had reversed the Cenvat credit disputed by Revenue, the penalty was set aside. 12. The Learned A. R. for Revenue relied on the impugned orders. He has drawn the attention to the Endings of the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order dated 30^th September, 2013 wherein the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) have relied on the finding in the Order-in-Original and observed that the assessee appellants had stated that they were using the said scrap in the manufacture and clearing on duty. Reliance have been placed on the conduct of the director of the assessee, wherein he has ....