TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 1272
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ORDER PER SHRI ASHOK JINDAL: The appellants are in appeal against the impugned order, denying CENVAT Credit and imposing penalties under Rule 26(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2. The facts of the case are that appellant is manufacturer of M.S. billets, M.S. ingots and TMT bars. For manufacturing such goods, the principal raw materials are iron and steel scrap, which the appellant/company used to procure from various manufacturers of iron and steel products, and also bazaar scrap from the bazaar / market. 3. The case of the appellants is that such raw materials were purchased by the appellants on payment of central excise duty, on which CENVAT Credit was availed. 4. However, on the basis of investigation conducted a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ervice during the period 2012-13 to 2015-16 was also denied by way of the impugned Show Cause Notice, alleging that the vehicles in question have not transported the goods to the premises of the appellant-company. The Show Cause Notice also proposed to impose penalty on the appellant nos. 2 and 3 herein, namely, Shri Biswanath Agarwal and Shri Gaurav Agarwal, due to their involvement, as being Directors of the appellant-company. 6.1. The matter was adjudicated and by way of the impugned order, the CENVAT Credit availed was denied and sought to be recovered, along with interest; penalties, on all the appellants, were imposed. 6.2. Aggrieved from the said order, the appellants are before us. 7. The Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uantity of goods which have been sold on payment of duty, by utilising CENVAT Credit as well as their PLA balance. Therefore, it is submitted by the appellants that denial of the CENVAT Credit of Rs.2,96,81,272/- is without any basis and liable to be set aside. 7.2. As the above CENVAT Credit cannot be denied, therefore, the Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the CENVAT Credit of Rs.93,803/- availed in respect of GTA service also cannot be denied, which has been availed by the appellant-company for transportation of the said goods. 7.3. To support his contentions, the Ld. Counsel for the appellants has relied on the decisions of the Tribunal in the cases of M/s. Motabhai Iron & Steel Industries v. Commissioner of C.Ex., Ahmeda....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CENVAT Credit, to the appellant company, without actual supply of such inputs. 11. We find that the only investigation conducted by the Revenue to say the same, is in regard to the transporting vehicles being not capable of transporting the goods to the factory premises of the appellants, being ambulances/tractors and that some of the transporters had denied transportation of such goods to the appellant's premises. 11.1. Admittedly, no investigation was conducted at the end of the supplier of the impugned goods to the appellants, who has issued the invoices to the appellants, to ascertain whether, along with such invoices, goods have been supplied by them or not. Moreover, in the present case, no investigation has also been conduc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ore, without establishing as to from where the appellants have procured inputs to manufacture such a huge quantity, the CENVAT Credit availed by them cannot be denied merely on the basis of the evidences as relied upon by the Revenue in support of their allegations, in the facts and circumstances of the case. 13. Moreover, we find that on the said allegation that one of the suppliers had not supplied goods to the appellant-company, a Show Cause Notice was issued, inter alia, to impose penalty on the appellant on the said allegation. During adjudication, the ld. adjudicating authority vide Order-in-Original No. 06/COMMR/C.Ex.Kol-V/KOL/2018-19 dated 13.04.2018 observed as under: - "58. The show cause notice clearly establishes the....