TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (7) TMI 908
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd Rs. 15,36,239 with consequent order of recovery of those amounts under section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944, along with applicable interest under section 11AB of Central Excise Act, 1944, and imposition of penalty of like amounts under section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944, and Shri Kamal R Ladsariya, the Director in the first appellant company, imposed with penalty of Rs. 85,00,000 and Rs. 5,00,000 along with two suppliers, M/s Rajdhani Aromatics and M/s Abhay Chemicals, of first appellant who had been imposed with penalty of Rs. 1,93,22,483 and Rs. 23,70,914 respectively under rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Learned Counsel contends that these should be set aside for having relied entirely on adjudication orders, that wer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....em allegedly without the wherewithal to undertake such manufacture, the first appellant, as a recipient of the allegedly 'non-existent' production, was issued with notices referred to supra for liabilities therewith. Following the confirmation of the allegations in the proceedings initiated in the jurisdiction of Commissionerate of Central Excise, Jammu, the proceedings leading to the impugned order were also concluded in the manner described above. 3. Learned Counsel for appellants submits that the denial of CENVAT credit is predicated entirely upon the adjudication effected by the Commissioner of Central Excise with jurisdiction over the four suppliers of the first appellant herein following an investigation conducted jointly by that aut....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....11,38,353 ordered to be recovered from M/s Khazana Corporation for the period from October 2007 to April 2008, the impugned order is limited to credit of Rs. 15,36,239 availed by the first appellant herein. 4. Learned Authorised Representative submits that the decision of the Tribunal insofar as the suppliers are concerned is not relevant to the proceedings initiated against the recipient of the inputs and, with that decision awaiting further appellate determination, is no precedent for setting aside the demand against the first appellant herein. It is also contended that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in Union of India and another v. VVF Ltd [(2020) SCC Online SC 378], been particularly critical of the undue advantage taken in ways that h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mphasize that the rationale of consequent detriment is without firm foundation. It is not the case made on behalf of the appellants that the proceedings in the Jammu jurisdiction, as well as that before the coordinate bench, were concerned with the facts pertaining to operations of the first appellant herein and, therefore, the plea of Learned Counsel that the impugned order should be set aside in like manner is not convincing. Accordingly, we take up the other grounds, each of which may have the effect of closing the present dispute before us, for evaluation. 6. It is common ground that the first appellant had furnished the documents issued by transporters as evidence of receipt of inputs at their facility. However, it is seen from the im....