TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (3) TMI 934
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ise 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, being Excise Appeal No.78838/18. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Appellant Company is engaged in the manufacture of M. S. Bars & TMT Rods, M. S. Ingot and Runner & Riser classifiable under Central Excise Tariff Sub-Heading 72149910, 72061090 and 72043000 of the Central Excise Tariff Act (in short 'Tariff'). During the audit of the records of the Appellant by the departmental audit team, it was noticed that the Appellant had availed Cenvat credit of Rs. 35,77,20,446/- in its ER 1 returns filed for the period 2011-12 to 2013-14. However, since the Appellant No.1 was unable to produce proper documents in support of such availment of Cenvat credit the Appellant No.1 had failed to comply with the provisions of Rule 9 of the Cenvat credit Rules, 2004. Therefore, the Department was of the view that the entire Cenvat credit was li....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uced to Rs. 2,36,16,062/- and the demand of Rs. 7,663/- was confirmed. Also a penalty of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- was imposed on the Director of the Appellant. 7. The Revenue is also in appeal against the captioned Order-in-Original to the extent it dropped the demand of Rs. 33,41,12,047/- out of the total demand of Rs. 35,77,20,446/- for Cenvat credit on the ground that the Ld. Adjudicating authority has merely relied on the Range Superintendent's report without ascertaining whether all the original documents 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Director, he relies on various judicial precedents to state that none of the offences under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 is attracted in the given case of the Appellant No.1 to impose any penalty on the Director. 9. He further relied on the following judgments in support of his case: a. TIN MANUFACTURING CO. (INDIA) Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., GHAZIABAD [2017 (347) E.L.T. 370 (Tri. - All.)] b. SYNDICATE BANK Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MANGALORE [2010 (18) S.T.R. 748 (Tri. - Bang.)] 10. He has also produced an independent Chartered Accountant's Certificate along with entire Input Cenvat credit register certifying the figures of Cenvat credit availed by the Appellant. 11. It is his submission that the demand is also barred by limitation as the demand covers the period from 2011-12 to 2013-14 whereasthe Show Cause Notice was issued on 22/03/2016 much after the expiry of the normal period of limitation. 12. As regards the Revenue's Appeal for dropping of demand of Rs. 33,41,12,047/-, it is his contention that the Department is disputing its own report which cannot be allowed at all as the same has been verified by the Range Superintende....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d of Service Tax on legal charges, it is seen from the documents submitted with the Appeal Paper book that the Appellant has not made any payments to the Advocate concerned and that the charges have been debited by the bank. Also from the invoice 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. 33,41,12,047/- which has been dropped by the Ld. Adjudicating authority we find that the Appeal has been preferred on grounds that the learned Adjudicating authority has not verified the correctness of the veri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....very invoices. Not more than some 200 invoices is possible to be examined in a day by one person. For this Sri Akhilesh Kumar Singh, Inspector is required to do this at the office of M/s Neelkamal Steels (Pvt) Ltd., since the ledger a/c and other documents are computerised and available in their office. Seeing the mammoth work it should take a minimum of 4-5 months even done on regular basis hampering the work of the range office for sure. In view of this it is requested to depute/allocate an officer from the division so that two officers may complete the assignment on early date. Expecting your kind favour. Yours faithfully MY 1121 1712117 (N. K. Sinha) Superintendent Central Excise Range, Patna City, Patna-7. Document 2 GOVERNMENT OF INDIA OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL EXCISE & S.TAX RANGE, PATNA CITY, PATNA, CBHADRA GHAT, GULZARBAGH, PATNA CITY, PATNA-800 007. NE 20/SCN/Neelkamal/Audit/08/P city/20163/ To.. The Assistant Commissioner. Central Excise & Service Tax. Division-11. Patna Bund Bury Bung 196 Dated: 20.06.2017 Sir Sub Parawise comments on defence reply of Demand Cum Show Cau....