TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (6) TMI 389
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... are directed against Order-in-Appeal No.41- 42-CE/APPL/KNP/ADG-NACIN/2017-18 dated 22/02/2018 passed by Additional Director General (ZTI) Customs, Indirect Taxes & Narcotics, Kanpur. By the impugned order, Commissioner (Appeals) has held as follows:- "ORDER In view of the above, the Order-in-Original No.04/CE/ADC/2016 dated 06.01.2016 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Central Excise Kanpur is upheld. The appeal No.105/CE/2016 and 106-CE/2016 both dated 21.03.2016, filed by M/s Jonson Matthey Chemicals India (P) Ltd., Plot No.2A, Site-II B Panki, Industrial Estate, Kanpur (earlier M/s Akzo Nobel India Ltd.) and Shri Mahendra Singh Dhatarwal, Assistant Manager (Commercial) of M/s Jonson Matthey Chemical India (P) Ltd. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e imposed upon them under Rule 15(2) of CENVAT Credit Rule, 2004 read with Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 for the aforesaid contraventions; IV. Penalty should not be imposed upon them Under Rule 27 of Central Excise Rule, 2002 for the aforesaid contraventions." 2.3 This show cause notice has been adjudicated as per Order- in-Original No.04/CE/ADC/2016 dated 06.01.2016 by holding as follows:- ORDER 1. I disallow the cenvat credit amounting to Rs 34,52,475/- (CENVAT Rs.33,51,918/- + ED. Cess Rs.67,038/- + H. ED. Cess Rs. 33,519/-) [Rupees thirty four lakhs fifty two thousand four hundred seventy five only) wrongly availed by M/s Akzo Nobel India Ltd., Plot No.2A, Site-II B. Panki Industrial Estate, Kanpur. I ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s appeal. 3.1 We have heard Shri Arpit Tiwari appearing with written submission for the appellant and Shri Manish Raj, learned Authorised Representative appearing for the revenue. 4.1 We have considered the impugned orders along with the submissions made in appeal and during the course of argument. 4.2 Show cause notice dated 30.01.2015 was adjudicated by the Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, Kanpur vide Order-in-Original No.KNP-EXCUS-000-COM-018-15-16 dated 29.10.2015 by holding as follows:- " ORDER 1. I deny the CENVAT credit amounting to Rs.4,48,81,193/- [Rs.5,18,656/- (amount of CENVAT credit taken on the manipulated duty paying documents) + Rs.4,43,62,537/- (amount of CENVAT credit of service tax in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Central Excise Rules, 2002, for the contraventions discussed here-in-above. 5. I also impose a penalty of Rs.5,00,000/- upon Shri Mahendra Dhatarwal, Assistant Manager (Commercial) of M/s Akzo Nobel India Itd., Plot No.2A, Site-IIB, Panki Industrial Estate, Kanpur under Rule 15(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, for the reasons discussed here-in- above. 6. I do not impose any penalty upon Shri Rajeev Malviya, the ex-employee of M/s Akzo Nobel India ltd., Plot No.2A, Site-IIB, Panki Industrial Estate, Kanpur for the reasons discussed in foregoing paras." 4.3 The order was challenged by the appellant in appeal before this Tribunal. Tribunal has vide Final Order No.A/72638- 72639/2018 dated 16.11.2018 set aside the or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... paragraphs from the impugned orders:- "12. We have heard both sides at length and perused the records. We find that the entire case of the revenue confirming the impugned demand by denying Cenvat Credit is unsustainable, both on facts and in law. Nothing is brought on record by the revenue to prove that the assessee did not receive duty paid inputs and/or it did not utilise the same for manufacture of finished excisable goods cleared on payment of duty. The existence of commercial arrangement between the appellant and JMCIPL is only to carry out the commercial activities for the purpose of business of the company in the light of the need for financing control, sales, marketing and allied activities to run the business and in no wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ass orders arbitrarily and cannot deny the credit or raise demand merely based on assumptions and presumptions. When facts on records are verified and found to be contrary to the allegations made in the notice, the demand as per notice cannot be confirmed again. The decision of the Supreme Court in Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT AIR 1955 SC 65 clearly supports the assessee as the Commissioner did not provide to the assessee the copy of the verification report of the Assistant Commissioner, which is claimed by it to be in support of its entitlement to Cenvat Credit after thorough verification, and there is no reason why the Commissioner should disregard the same and repeat what was alleged in the show cause notice while passing the imp....