2019 (4) TMI 471

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 03.11.2016 Rs.93,550/ (equal amount of penalty) 25.05.2017 18.07.2018 2. E/53365/2018 03.11.2016 Penalty Rs. 10,000/- 25.05.2017 18.07.2018 2. The appellant i.e M/s. G.K. Auto, is engaged in the manufacture of CI Casting (Automotive Pressure Plates) falling under Chapter 7325 of Central Excise Tariff Act 1985 (CEA). During an investigation conducted by the Officers of DGCEI Headquarters, New Delhi against Shri Amit Gupta, Director of M/s. Progressive Alloys India Pvt. Ltd. and other associate dealers, it was revealed that they were passing on the inadmissible Cenvat Credit on the Cenvatable invoices of non-ferrous materials to the manufacturers without delivery of the goods. It was further revealed that 2 firms namely, M/s. Unnat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....record about appellant availing the alleged amount of Cenvat Credit on the strength of un-genuine invoices during the impugned period. Since the said conduct reflects the contravention of the provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR), the order under challenge has no infirmity. The appeals are accordingly, prayed to be dismissed. 7. After hearing the same and perusing the record, I observe that the show cause notice has been issued to the appellant as a follow-up action during the investigation conducted against the trading firms associated with Shri Amit Gupta, Director of M/s. Progressive Alloys India Pvt. Ltd. No doubt, DGCEI has proceeded on the basis of the statement of Shri Amit Gupta where he admitted of issuing cenvatable invoi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d fairness, hence, are not sustainable. The documents as that of GRs were also the parts of the record. Hence, the opinion of the adjudicating authority no builty/GRs is also hold to be a finding merely based on presumption. There is no statutory basis for the said finding specifically in the case, where GR as a document is produced on record. The Department has failed to produce any other document to falsify the said GR. No doubt, the Department is not supposed to establish a fact with mathematical precision, as has been impressed upon by the adjudicating authority below, but simultaneously the onus to falsify the document of the appellant still rests upon the Department and the adjudication cannot be decided merely based on the presumptio....