TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 916
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....18-19 dated 31.05.2018. One of the appellant being the Company and another being its Managing Director. 2. The facts which culminated into the said adjudicating authority, in brief are that M/s. Kanha Aluminium Pvt Ltd., the appellants are manufacturer of aluminium billets/ blocks etc., and are holding central excise registration. They are also availing the facility of Cenat Credit of specified duties in terms of rule 3 (one of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004) as paid on inputs, input services and capital goods received in their factory for manufacture of their final products. While scrutiny of the appellant record in relation to its request for surrender of the registration the department, the department got a reasonable belief about appellan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xcise duty. 4. Thus a show cause notice bearing no.03/2015 dated 24.08.2015 was issued invoking the extended period of limitation to the appellant had proposed the reversal of total amount of Cenvat credit Rs.43,49,539/- wrongly availed by the appellants was proposed to be disallowed/reversed an amount of Rs.10,53,658/- already deposited by the appellant was proposed to be appropriated in addition the central excise duty amounting to Rs.34,39,543/- was proposed to be recovered with respect to the finished goods cleared clandestinely. The interest at the appropriate rate and the proportionate penalty on all co-noticees including the appellant were also enclosed. The said proposal has been confirmed vide Order-in-Original No.03/2017-2018 d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....confirmed. Further, it is submitted that since the appellant has failed to reconcile the shortages or to show the lawful clearance, the clandestine removal of the goods stand clearly established on record from the overwhelming circumstantial and corroborative evidence, the excise duty demand also has been rightly confirmed. Finally, it is submitted that present case is the clear case of fraud and willful suppression of facts as different from the procedural laps. The extended period of limitation has rightly been invoked. Order under challenged is therefore, prayed to be upheld and the appeal is prayed to be dismissed. 7. Having heard the Department perusing the appeal memo specifically the grounds of appeal, it is observed that demand h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ven for denying the credit by original adjudicating authority: (i). The Bill of Entry was already exhausted while selling the said imported scrape under invoice no.94 and 95 both dated 21.12.2010. (ii). The scrape imported against the said Bill of Entries were never received in the factory of the appellant, rather the specific endorsement was found in the XPC gate for instructing the driver to change the location of delivery of scrap. (iii). This Cenvat Credit was availed on invoices by referring fictitious invoice details and ECC/ registration number of the suppliers. (iv). This Cenvat Credit was availed during the month of April 2012 and May 2012 on the strength of invoice no. 06 dated 23.04.2012 and an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eptable in the given set of facts and circumstances. 11. With these observations, we hold that the Cenvat credit has wrongly and improperly being availed by the appellant in violation of rule 3(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The reversal, thereof, has rightly been ordered in the impugned order-in-appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) has also recorded that the only document submitted by the appellant in support of their contention was the print out of their own account ledger. Not even the invoices were produced by the appellant to proof that the availment of credit is valid. On the contrary department had made a thorough investigation and received the copy of their ledger showing that the suppliers as named by the appellant, have not mad....