2024 (7) TMI 468

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ving invoices only with an intension to avail CENVAT credit and clearing goods without payment of duty, proceedings were initiated against M/s KEPL. Based on the same, SCN was issued to appellant also. Appellant submitted detailed reply to the notice and produced evidences to substantiate their contentions. However adjudicating authority held that there is an omission on the part of appellant and imposed penalty. Aggrieved by the impugned order, present appeal is filed. 2. When the matter came up for hearing, Ld Counsel for the appellant submits that the statement relied by the Adjudicating authority is the statement recorded on 28.03.2008 and the same was retracted on 12.04.2008. Further submits there is no finding based on the evidence....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e category of disputes covered by Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme 2019. The Learned Counsel produced the copy of Form SVLDRS-1 and Form SVLDRS - 4 relates to M/s. KEPL and submits that the dispute is settled by the main accused. 5. Learned DR reiterated the findings given by the Adjudicating authority. Heard both sides. The CBEC Circular No. 1071/4/2019-CX.d dated 27.08.2019 Clause 6 reads as follows: "6. It may be appreciated that the ambit of this Scheme is wide enough to cover all kinds of pending disputes, including call book cases, except for a few categories. The exclusions are firstly, cases in respect of goods that are still subject to levy of Central Excise such as specified petroleum products and tobac....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....otice has settled the matter before the Settlement Commission and paid the dues and in which co-notices were not a party to the proceedings before the Settlement Commission". 7. On merit, it is observed that the finding in the impugned order is that the Appellant had not supplied goods as per invoices on the presumption that there was shortage of raw material in the factory of the Consignee M/s KEPL. But the discrepancy in the stock of goods in the factory of M/s KEPL cannot lead to any adverse inference against the Appellant since it can be due to many reasons and not attributable only to the Appellant, amongst all the suppliers. M/s KEPL has made payments by Cheques for the goods supplied under 18 invoices. Moreover Respondent has not ....