TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 321
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efly stated the facts of the case are that M/s. Bindawala Cables & Conductors Limited (the assessee), Respondent No. 1 is engaged in the manufacture of various grades of Alluminium Conductors and availed CENVAT Credit under the provisions of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004. In course of investigation against the assessee, it was found that the assessee had availed CENVAT Credit wrongly on M.S. Wire/ Wire Rod showing the purchase of the said goods under the invoices issued by M/s. Kritika Wires Private Limited, M/s. Shivam India Limited without receiving the inputs in their factory. After thorough investigation, a Show Cause Notice dated 16.09.2015 was issued proposing denial of CENVAT Credit along with interest and to impose penalty on the assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... M/s. Steel Centre & Others Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Patna vide Order No. FO/77411- 77415/2017 dated 21.09.17 upheld the penalty on the assessee and also reduced the amount of penalty on the co-appellants. 3. The Learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that the assessee placed Orders for M.S. Wire Rods to various Manufacturers/Sellers, M/s. Kritika Wires Private Limited and Shivam India Limited and the payments were made. The goods were received between September 2010 to March 2011 in a routine manner and the goods were received in their factory and utilized in the manufacture of final products. It is submitted that the assessee found M.S. Wire Rods unviable for M.S. Wire production and the credit taken on the goods befo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt manner and therefore imposition of penalty is warranted under the provisions of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. 7. I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalty that there is no evidence produced by the Revenue to substantiate the fact that the assessee has procured the inputs from elsewhere. It is observed that the allegation of the Revenue, that the assessee was not entitled to avail the CENVAT Credit, since they have only resorted to paper transaction without actual receipt of the impugned goods, to be devoid of merit. The Commissioner (Appeals) proceeded on the basis that the assessee reversed the credit before the issuance of the Show Cause Notice and therefore there was no mala fide intent on the part of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by MCU on the basis of invoices issued by BSC as well as M/s. Steel Centre. The goods from BSC as well as Steel Centre have been claimed to be transported by UFC and have been accompanied by their consignment notes but the investigation undertaken at the end of UFC has established, through the statement of Shri Bithal Agarwal, that UFC has never undertaken transportation of goods covered by the invoices, issued by the two suppliers. It has been admitted that the consignment notes have been issued only in return of 2% commission. Further, the Department undertook verification of vehicle numbers in the consignment notes of UFC in respect of the both suppliers. But the vehicles shown to have been used for transportation of goods by UFC, were....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er No. 53839- 53841/2017-Ex [DB] dated 09.06.2017. 10) In view of the above discussions, recovery of CENVAT Credit alongwith interest as well as penalty of Rs. 1,16,03,673/- imposed against MCU, are upheld. 11) We conclude that the CENVAT Credit availed by MCU on the basis of such fraudulent invoices issued by the two dealers, is required to be reversed alongwith interest. BSE and Steel Centre have issued invoices fraudulently without transacting any goods. UFC has also facilitated such fraudulent availment of credit. Consequently, we upheld all the penalties imposed in the impugned order for the reasons mentioned therein against various persons. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view ....