2025 (2) TMI 678

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Representative for the Respondent ORDER PER : M. M. PARTHIBAN Miscellaneous applications were filed by the appellants praying for revising the grounds of appeal in the concerned appeals filed by the appellants. On going through the averments made in the miscellaneous applications, the prayer made by the appellants is considered and revised grounds of appeal are taken into consideration for disposing of the appeals. The miscellaneous applications are disposed of accordingly. 2. These appeals have been filed by M/s Ajramar Impex Private Limited, Mumbai and M/s S.K. Oswal Polymers, Mumbai (herein after, for short, referred together as 'the appellants') against the Order-in-Appeal No. DL/07- 09/APPEALS THANE/TR/2020-21 dated 28.07.2020 (r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rit Polychem Private Limited, Mumbai have filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals-Thane). In a common order dated 28.07.2020, which is impugned herein, he had dismissed the appeals on the ground that the appellants are registered dealers under Central Excise and knowingly have dealt with excisable goods by aiding and abetting with the purchaser SSPL and allowing wrong availment of Cenvat credit by merely issuing their respective sale invoices without transporting corresponding goods. Feeling aggrieved with the said impugned order, the appellants have filed these appeals before the Tribunal. 4. Heard both sides and perused the case records. 5.1 It is a fact on record that in respect of the SCN dated 28.06.2014 issued to the main not....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....osition of penalty under Rule 26(2) ibid in respect of that co-noticee alone i.e., M/s Amrit Polychem Pvt. Ltd., was decided by this Tribunal, vide Final Order No. 85230/2024 dated 20.02.2024, by rejecting the appeal. 5.3 The learned counsel for the appellants had forcefully submitted that the conclusion arrived at by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) that both the appellants had admitted that they paid cash amount to SPPL, as receipt back (cash payment) for the amounts received from SPPL by cheque in respect of 14 consignments is factually incorrect. Further, he stated that the submissions made by them in respect of statement given by Mr Jatin Somaiya, MD & CEO of SPPL stating that in respect of 14 consignments (11 pertaining to S.K. Osw....