TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (9) TMI 907
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en disposed off by a common impugned order, therefore I am proposing to dispose off all the three appeals by this common order. The details of all the three appeals are given below:- Name of the appellant CENVAT Credit demanded Penalty imposed M/s Usha Enterprises 7,19,834/- 7,19,834/- M/s North Star Industries Pvt Ltd 75,000/- M/s Godawari Enterprise 1,00,000/- 2. Brief facts of the present case are that M/s Usha Enterprises (M/s UE) are engaged in the manufacture and clearance of Brass and Copper Sheet, Circles and Frame falling under Chapter Heading 74 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 for which they are registered with Central Excise Department and are availing the facility of CENVAT cre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unting to Rs. 7,19,834/- had been passed on by the registered dealers to M/s UE on the basis of invoices issued by M/s MAPL and M/s UAPL. Statement of Sh. Sanjay Gupta, Partner of M/s UE was recorded on 04.05.2016 where upon being confronted with the statements dt. 06.12.2012 and 14.12.2012 of Sh. Amit Gupta, he stated that he could not comment on the contents of the said statement as they had not dealt with the firms owned by Sh. Amit Gupta. DGCEI in its investigations had already brought out that to show fictitious transportation, Sh. Amit Gupta had used the GRs of many defunct transporters and M/s Leo Trans & Logistics were among those defunct transporters. DGCEI in its investigations had also brought on record that the vehicle numbers u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed without considering the submissions made by the appellants. He further submitted that the impugned order appears to have been passed by just cut-paste of the orders of some other parties and it is clear from para 5 of the impugned order which contain reference to some other parties having no relevance to the present case. He further submitted that the adjudicating authority proceeded to pass an exparte order on the basis of preliminary submissions. His further contention is that the impugned order is bad in law being passed without even supplying the relied upon documents despite the request letters made by the appellants on 27.04.2017, 11.05.2017 and 02.07.2016 specifically requesting for the supply of the relied upon documents and sta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ceipt/issuing of the material for the manufacture of the final product. Ld. Counsel further submitted that in the investigations done by the departments, there is nothing incriminating against the appellants and there is no allegation of any of connivance of the appellants with the importer or supplier of inputs and the credit has been disallowed simply on the basis of ambiguity alleged at the importer/third party end. He further submitted that it is a settled law that discrepancy if any at third person end cannot be taken as a basis to deny the credit to the appellants. Ld. Counsel further submitted that there was no justification to confirm the demand when the excise returns containing the details of availment of credit have been duly ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and the copy of the same has been produced on record. 5. On the other hand, Ld. A.R. defended the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions made by both the parties and perusal of the various decisions relied upon by the appellants, I find that the impugned order has been passed in violation of the statutory provisions and the decisions relied upon by the appellants are squarely applicable in the present case. Further, I find that the decision of the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in the case of similarly placed assessee is applicable in the present case and the same has been subsequently relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals) in his order dt. 07.08.2018 in the case of M/s Lakshmi Industries & others. Further, I find that ....