TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 1370
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... For the Respondent : Mr. Maneesh Akhoury, Assistant Commissioner (AR) ORDER PER : D.M. MISRA: These appeals are filed against Order-in-Original No.10/HE/COMMR/B1/2015 dated 21.04.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on the basis of information, the department has initiated investigation against availment of cenvat credit of Rs.1,31,84,000/- against a single invoice by the appellant on 30th September 2009 and on completion of investigation by recording statements, retrieving records, etc., show-cause notice was issued to the appellant for recovery of cenvat credit of Rs.1,31,84,000/- along with interest and penalty; proposal for penalty on the Directors....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se order as KAVJIGGN/363/2009-10 dated 28.03.2010 again for invoice No.16 dated 30.09.2009. The receipt of the goods mentioned under Invoice No.16 dated 30.09.2009 from M/s. Nextgen Electronics Pvt. Ltd. had been recorded in their inward register vide Sl. No.1086 dated 30.09.2009 in page No.208 of the said register. The receipt of the goods was recorded in the stock register vide IGIR No.2216 dated 31.03.2010. The appellant's factory was closed and on verification by the departmental officers visiting their Head Office in 2013 found that the inward register IGIR register maintained at the Head Office since did not mention the receipt of the said goods against Invoice No.16, investigation was initiated against the appellant. He submits that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Further, he has submitted that the supplier M/s. Nextgen Electronics Pvt. Ltd. have shown the clearances of the said goods against invoice No.16 dated 30.09.2009 in their Daily Stock Account/RG1 and also in their monthly ER-1 return for the month of September 2009. A copy of the ER-1 return enclosed with the appeal paper-book reveals that they have paid excise duty of Rs.1,35,26,238/-. Explaining the discrepancy in the number of items shown in invoice No.16 dated 30.09.2009 issued earlier and subsequently, he has submitted that initially the supplier had shown 14 items but while issuing revised/corrected invoice while correcting name of the consignee in the said Invoice No.19 dated 30.09.2009, one item (NM connector or for ½" Cable....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed 30.09.2009 wherein the consignee was shown as M/s. Kavveri Telecom Infrastructure Limited by referring to the buyer's purchase order No.002 dated 20.07.2009. The Annexure to the invoice mentions the list of 14 items. Later, another invoice with same number and date was also issued by M/s. Nextgen Electronics Pvt. Ltd. to the appellant where the buyer and the consignee was shown as the appellant i.e., M/s. Kavveri Telecom Products Pvt. Ltd. which has been corrected at the request of the appellant to M/s. Nextgen Electronics Pvt. Ltd. However, in the process of correction of the consignee/buyer's name, the description of the product got altered and also the number of line items, even though the total value, excise duty paid and other parti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... reflecting payment of amount shown in the invoice dated 30.09.2009 to M/s. Nextgen Electronics Pvt. Ltd. and the purchase register for the period from 01.04.2009 to 30.03.2010. Besides they have also placed on record the stock register of M/s. Nextgen Electronics Pvt. Ltd. who supplied the material and also ER-1 return filed by M/s. Nextgen Electronics Pvt. Ltd. indicating despatch of their goods from their factory on payment of appropriate duty which the appellant had availed as cenvat credit. All these documents indicate that there has been purchase and sale of the inputs mentioned in the invoice No.16 dated 30.09.2009 but due to technical mistakes in showing the name of the appellant as the consignee and also buyer, consignee name was ....