TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (3) TMI 934
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Commissioner, whereby the demand of Cenvat credit ofRs. 2,36,08,399/- and demand of Service Tax of Rs. 7,663/- totaling to Rs. 2,36,16,062/- has been confirmed for the period 2011 - 12 to 2013 - 14,being Excise Appeal No.78517/18. A penalty of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- has also been imposed on the Director of the Appellant company and hence the Appeal has been preferred against the same by the Director, being Excise Appeal No.78518/18. 2. Further the Department is also in Appeal against the impugned order challenging the dropping of demand of Cenvat credit of Rs. 33,41,12,047/- out of the total demand of Rs. 35,77,20,446/- on account of irregular availment of Cenvat credit as proposed in the Show Cause cum Demand Notice dated 22nd March, 2016, be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lty be imposed on the Director of the Appellant company under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Appellant No.1 by its letter dated August 18, 2016 duly replied to the said Show Cause - cum - Demand Notice pointing out inter alia that all the Cenvat credit documents were available at its disposal and the verification of the same may be done independently by the Department before passing any adjudication order and that it had provided all such documents to the audit team also. As regards demand of Service Tax on legal charges, the Appellant contended that the expenses on legal charges were debited by the Appellant No.1's bank on its own volition and it had not made any payment to any Advocate and hence the question of reverse cha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ocuments pertaining to transportation and delivery of goods were verified by the Range Superintendent and whether the original invoices were verified by the Range Superintendent. 8. Shri Ankit Kanodia, Ld. Advocate, appeared on behalf of the Appellant company and its Director. He produced a statement showing the break up of demand for Cenvat credit as below: Sl. No. Particulars Rs. Rs. Cenvat Credit demand 2,36,08,399 A Input Credit disallowed for 11-12 As per ER 1 6,49,49,080 as per verification report 5,61,43,401 Difference 88,05,679 B Input Cr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d, the demand cannot sustain. Further, as regards input Cenvat credit for 2012-13, he submits that all the documents have been annexed with the Appeal Paper book which may be verified and which had also been made available earlier by the Appellant No.1 to the Department. He thus concludes that since the demand is based on a report which has not been shared by the Department and moreover the Appellant No.1 has always been in a position to provide all the required documents as may be desired, the matter may be remanded to the original authority for verification of the documents to the extent in dispute and the balance demand may be dropped. As regards imposition of penalty on the Director, he relies on various judicial precedents to state tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Review authority. 13. Shri J.Chattopadhyay, Ld. Authorized Representative appearing on behalf of the Department, justified the order of the Review authority. 14. Heard both sides through video conferencing and perused the appeal records. 15. In the instant case, the Ld. Adjudicating authority has confirmed the demand of recovery of Cenvat credit of Rs. 2,36,08,399/- and dropped the balance demand of Rs. 33,41,12,047/- by relying on the Range Superintendent's report of verification of invoices for the period 2011-12 to 2013-14. 16. The Appellant has produced before us their entire input Cenvat Credit Register certified by a Chartered Accountant and also produced copies of invoices said to be missing for the period 2012-13 in the Or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of the Advocate it is clear that the same has not been issued in favour of the Appellant. Hence the demand on such invoices cannot survive and we order so. 18. As regards the penalty imposed on the Director under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, we are of the view that the captioned case only relates to non- production of documents by the Appellant before the Department and there is no allegation of availment of Cenvat credit without receipt of goods and /or services. Hence the imposition of penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 on the Director is unjustified and we accordingly set aside the same with consequential relief as per law. 19. Next, as regards the Department's Appeal for the demand of Rs. 33,41,12,....