TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 1927
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Commissionerate, disallowing Cenvat credit of Rs. 2,98,06,375/- availed and utilised by the appellant during the period 2003-04 and confirming the demand of the same under Rule 12 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002/Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, read with Section 11A(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, along with interest thereon and imposing penalty of an equivalent amount upon the appellant under Rule 13 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002/Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. 2. The facts, in brief, are that during the investigation conducted by the DGCEI authorities in respect of the allegation of evasion of Central Excise Duty by one Ishaan Technologies Private Limited, By....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be demanded and recovered from the appellant along with interest and penalty imposed in terms of specified provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, read with the provisions of the Central Excise Act. The allegations and demand made and penalty proposed in the show cause notice have been confirmed by the impugned order of the Commissioner 3. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that similar show cause notice was issued to the appellant's unit in Kutch, Gujarat, wherein similar allegations, based on same investigation and evidences, were made in respect of 10 MW Alternator supplied by Ishaan Technologies Private Limited to the said unit of the appellant. The said show cause notice and the demand made therein was confirmed by a final ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....asis of the evidences on record, similar show cause notice was issued to the Kutch unit of Manaksia Ltd. at Gujarat alleging wrong availment of cenvat credit. 7. In the order passed by the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Manaksia Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Rajkot (supra) the relevant facts, in brief, set out therein, are as follows:- (a) M/s Manaksia Ltd., the main appellant placed an order with M/s Ishaan Technologies P. Ltd. (ITPL, for short) for 10 MW Slow speed alternator with AVRS and Voltage Control System. (b) M/s Manaksia Ltd. received the said system under Invoice No.2 dt.12.4.03 issued by ITPL, showing the value of the consignment as Rs. 5,50,00,000/- and the amount of duty paid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a manufacturer for clearance of capital goods from his factory or his depot or from the premises of the consignment agent of the said manufacturer or from any other premises from where the goods are sold by or on behalf of the said manufacture in terms of the provisions of Central Excise Rules, 2002. In the facts of the present case, the Tribunal has found that it is an undisputed position that the respondent Company had received the alternator which was consigned; that no evidence had been produced that the supplier had not paid the duty; that receipt of goods was also not disputed. According to the Tribunal, as long as the amount of duty as indicated in the duty paying document had been paid and as long as the inputs/capital goods which a....