Gillard Radio Products Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise

1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?

4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?

Excise Appeal No. 1577 of 2010 - Ex (SM)

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 116-119/CE/D II/2010 dated 25.03.2010 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Delhi II]

Gillard Radio Products Pvt. Ltd. Appellants

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent

Delhi II

Excise Appeal No. 1703  1708, 1870 of 2010 - Ex (SM)

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 133-136/CE/D II/2010 dated 29.03.2010 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Delhi II]

M/s. Arihanta Metal Co. Appellants

Shri Rahul Baid

Shri Sidharth Baid

DE-OR Metal Ind Pvt. Ltd.

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent

Delhi II

Excise Appeal No. 1957-1959 of 2010 - Ex (SM)

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 135-137/MA/GGN/2010 dated 23.03.2010 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Delhi III]

M/s. Arihanta Metal Co. Appellants

Shri Sidharth Baid

Shri Rahul Baid

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent

Delhi III

Excise Appeal No. 3437 of 2010 - Ex (SM)

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 350/CE/APPL-D-II/2010 dated 30.07.2010 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Delhi II]

M/s. Arihanta Metal Co. Appellants

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent

Delhi II

Excise Appeal No. 3440 of 2010 - Ex (SM)

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 235/CE/APPL-IDA/2010 dated 29.07.2010 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Delhi II]

M/s. Arihanta Metal Co. Appellants

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent

NOIDA

Excise Appeal No. 3444, 3445 & 3446 of 2010 - Ex (SM)

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 217-219/CE/APPL-IDA/2010 dated 29.07.2010 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Delhi ]

M/s. Arihanta Metal Co. Appellants

Shri Rahul Baid

Shri Sidharth Baid

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent

NOIDA

Excise Appeal No. 3447, 3448 & 3449 of 2010 - Ex (SM)

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 220-222/CE/APPL-IDA/2010 dated 29.07.2010 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Delhi]

M/s. Arihanta Metal Co. Appellants

Shri Rahul Baid

Shri Sidharth Baid

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent

NOIDA

Excise Appeal No. 3450, 3451, 3452 of 2010 - Ex (SM)

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 389-391/CE/APPL-D II/2010 dated 4.08.2010 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Delhi II]

M/s. Arihanta Metal Co. Appellants

Shri Rahul Baid

Shri Sidharth Baid

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent

Delhi II

Excise Appeal No. 3467 of 2010 - Ex (SM)

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 362/CE/APPL-D II/2010 dated 30.07.2010 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Delhi II]

M/s. Arihanta Metal Co. Appellants

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent

Delhi II

Excise Appeal No. 3468 of 2010 - Ex (SM)

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 364/CE/APPL-D II/2010 dated 30.07.2010 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Delhi II]

Shri Rahul Baid Appellants

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent

Delhi II

Excise Appeal No. 3469 of 2010 - Ex (SM)

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 362/CE/APPL-D II/2010 dated 30.07.2010 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Delhi II]

Shri Sidharth Baid Appellants

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent

Delhi II

Excise Appeal No. 3470 of 2010 - Ex (SM)

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 355/CE/APPL-D II/2010 dated 30.07.2010 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Delhi II]

M/s. Arihanta Metal Co. Appellants

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent

Delhi II

Excise Appeal No. 3471 of 2010 - Ex (SM)

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 357/CE/APPL-D II/2010 dated 30.07.2010 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Delhi II]

Shri Rahul Baid Appellants

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent

Delhi II

Excise Appeal No. 3472 of 2010 - Ex (SM)

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 356/CE/APPL-D II/2010 dated 30.07.2010 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Delhi II]

Shri Sidharth Baid Appellants

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent

Delhi II

Excise Appeal No. 3474 of 2010 - Ex (SM)

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 360/CE/APPL-D II/2010 dated 27.07.2010 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Delhi II]

Shri Sidharth Baid Appellants

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent

Delhi II

Excise Appeal No. 3475 of 2010 - Ex (SM)

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 361/CE/APPL-IDA/2010 dated 27.07.2010 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Delhi II]

Shri Rahul Baid Appellants

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent

Delhi II

Excise Appeal No. 3701 -3703 of 2010 - Ex (SM)

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 248-250 /CE/APPL-IDA/2010 dated 13.08.2010 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Delhi]

M/s. Arihanta Metal Co. Appellants

Shri Sidharth Baid

Shri Rahul Baid

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent

NOIDA

Excise Appeal No. 3952 of 2010 - Ex (SM)

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 154/CE/APPL-DLH IV/2010 dated 13.09.2010 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Delhi IV]

M/s. Arihanta Metal Co. Appellants

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent

Delhi IV

Excise Appeal No. 3953 - 3955 of 2010 - Ex (SM)

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 575 -577 /CE/APPL-D II/2010 dated 4.10.2010 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Delhi II]

M/s. Arihanta Metal Co. Appellants

Shri Sidharth Baid

Shri Rahul Baid

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent

Delhi II

Excise Appeal No. 478 - 480 of 2011 - Ex (SM)

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 10/CE/APPL-IDA/2011 dated 28.01.2011 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Delhi II]

M/s. Arihanta Metal Co. Appellants

Shri Rahul Baid

Shri Sidharth Baid

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent

Delhi II

Excise Appeal No. 492 of 2011 - Ex (SM)

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 213 -216/CE/DLH/2010 dated 1.12..2010 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Delhi II]

Shri Rahul Baid Appellants

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent

Delhi II

Excise Appeal No. 559 - 561 of 2011 - Ex (SM)

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 171-173/CE/DLH/2010 dated 1.12.2010 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Delhi II]

M/s. Arihanta Metal Co. Appellants

Shri Rahul Baid

Shri Sidharth Baid

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent

Delhi II

Excise Appeal No. 562 - 564 of 2011 - Ex (SM)

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 236-238/CE/DLH/2010 dated 1.12.2010 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Delhi II]

M/s. Arihanta Metal Appellants

Shri Rahul Baid

Shri Sidharth Baid

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent

Delhi II

Excise Appeal No. 565 - 567 of 2011 - Ex (SM)

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 233-235/CE/DLH/2010 dated 1.12.2010 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Delhi II]

M/s. Arihanta Metal Appellants

Shri Rahul Baid

Shri Sidharth Baid

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent

Delhi II

Excise Appeal No. 568 - 570 of 2011 - Ex (SM)

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 195-197/CE/APPL- DLH /2010 dated 1.12.2010 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Delhi II]

M/s. Arihanta Metal Co. Appellants

Shri Rahul Baid

Shri Sidharth Baid

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent

Delhi II

Excise Appeal No. 571 - 573 of 2011 - Ex (SM)

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 217-220/CE/APPL- DLH /2010 dated 1.12.2010 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Delhi II]

M/s. Arihanta Metal Co. Appellants

Shri Rahul Baid

Shri Sidharth Baid

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent

Delhi II

Excise Appeal No. 574  576 of 2011 - Ex (SM)

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 180-182/CE/ DLH /2010 dated 1.12.2010 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Delhi II]

M/s. Arihanta Metal Co. Appellants

Shri Rahul Baid

Shri Sidharth Baid

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent

Delhi II

Excise Appeal No. 580  582 of 2011 - Ex (SM)

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 224-226/CE/DLH /2010 dated 1.12.2010 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Delhi II]

M/s. Arihanta Metal Co. Appellants

Shri Rahul Baid

Shri Sidharth Baid

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent

Delhi II

Excise Appeal No. 583 585 of 2011 - Ex (SM)

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 210-212/CE/DLH /2010 dated 1.12.2010 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Delhi II]

M/s. Arihanta Metal Co. Appellants

Shri Rahul Baid

Shri Sidharth Baid

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent

Delhi II

Excise Appeal No. 586 588 of 2011 - Ex (SM)

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 221-223/CE/DLH /2010 dated 1.12.2010 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Delhi II]

M/s. Arihanta Metal Co. Appellants

Shri Rahul Baid

Shri Sidharth Baid

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent

Delhi II

Excise Appeal No. 589 591 of 2011 - Ex (SM)

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 198-200/CE/DLH /2010 dated 1.12.2010 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Delhi II]

M/s. Arihanta Metal Co. Appellants

Shri Rahul Baid

Shri Sidharth Baid

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent

Delhi II

Excise Appeal No. 595 597 of 2011 - Ex (SM)

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 239-242/CE/DLH /2010 dated 1.12.2010 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Delhi II]

M/s. Arihanta Metal Co. Appellants

Shri Rahul Baid

Shri Sidharth Baid

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent

Delhi II

Excise Appeal No. 598 600 of 2011 - Ex (SM)

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 207-209/CE/DLH /2010 dated 1.12.2010 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Delhi II]

M/s. Arihanta Metal Co. Appellants

Shri Rahul Baid

Shri Sidharth Baid

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent

Delhi II

Excise Appeal No. 601 603 of 2011 - Ex (SM)

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 177-179/CE/DLH /2010 dated 1.12.2010 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Delhi II]

M/s. Arihanta Metal Co. Appellants

Shri Rahul Baid

Shri Sidharth Baid

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent

Delhi II

Excise Appeal No. 604 606 of 2011 - Ex (SM)

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 186-188/CE/DLH /2010 dated 1.12.2010 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Delhi II]

M/s. Arihanta Metal Co. Appellants

Shri Rahul Baid

Shri Sidharth Baid

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent

Delhi II

Excise Appeal No. 607 609 of 2011 - Ex (SM)

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 174-176/CE/DLH /2010 dated 1.12.2010 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Delhi II]

M/s. Arihanta Metal Co. Appellants

Shri Rahul Baid

Shri Sidharth Baid

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent

Delhi II

Excise Appeal No. 610 612 of 2011 - Ex (SM)

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 227-229/CE/DLH /2010 dated 1.12.2010 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Delhi II]

M/s. Arihanta Metal Co. Appellants

Shri Rahul Baid

Shri Sidharth Baid

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent

Delhi II

Excise Appeal No. 613 615 of 2011 - Ex (SM)

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 192-194/CE/DLH /2010 dated 1.12.2010 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Delhi II]

M/s. Arihanta Metal Co. Appellants

Shri Rahul Baid

Shri Sidharth Baid

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent

Delhi II

Excise Appeal No. 616 618 of 2011 - Ex (SM)

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 189-191/CE/DLH /2010 dated 1.12.2010 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Delhi II]

M/s. Arihanta Metal Co. Appellants

Shri Rahul Baid

Shri Sidharth Baid

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent

Delhi II

Excise Appeal No. 623 624 of 2011 - Ex (SM)

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 213-216/CE/DLH /2010 dated 1.12.2010 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Delhi II]

M/s. Arihanta Metal Co. Appellants

Shri Rahul Baid

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent

Delhi II

Excise Appeal No. 626 628 of 2011 - Ex (SM)

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 230-232/CE/DLH /2010 dated 1.12.2010 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Delhi II]

M/s. Arihanta Metal Co. Appellants

Shri Rahul Baid

Shri Sidharth Baid

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent

Delhi II

Excise Appeal No. 629 631 of 2011 - Ex (SM)

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 204-206/CE/DLH /2010 dated 1.12.2010 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Delhi II]

M/s. Arihanta Metal Co. Appellants

Shri Rahul Baid

Shri Sidharth Baid

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent

Delhi II

Excise Appeal No. 632 of 2011 - Ex (SM)

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 11/CE/APPL-IDA/2011 dated 28.01.2011 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Delhi]

M/s. Arihanta Metal Co. Appellants

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent

NOIDA

Excise Appeal No. 647 of 2011 - Ex (SM)

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 217-220/CE/DLH /2010 dated 1.12.2010 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Delhi II]

M/s. Swiss Auto Appellants

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent

Delhi II

Excise Appeal No. 708 of 2011 - Ex (SM)

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 239-242/CE/DLH /2010 dated 1.12.2010 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Delhi II]

M/s. Bentex Motor Control Gear Industries. Appellants

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent

Delhi II

Excise Appeal No. 1021 of 2011 - Ex (SM)

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 43-BK-GGN /2011 dated 27.1.2011 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Delhi III]

M/s. Arihanta Metal Co. Appellants

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent

Delhi II

Excise Appeal No. 1023-1025 of 2011 - Ex (SM)

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 15-17/CE/APPL-IDA/2011 dated 11.02.2011 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Delhi]

M/s. Arihanta Metal Co. Appellants

Shri Sidharth Baid

Shri Rahul Baid

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent

NOIDA

Excise Appeal No. 1026-1028 of 2011 - Ex (SM)

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 01-03-CE-LKO/2011 dated 21.02.2011 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Lucknow]

M/s. Arihanta Metal Co. Appellants

Shri Sidharth Baid

Shri Rahul Baid

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent

Lucknow

Excise Appeal No. 1029-1031 of 2011 - Ex (SM)

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 98-101/CE/D II /2011 dated 8.3.2011 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Delhi II]

M/s. Arihanta Metal Co. Appellants

Shri Sidharth Baid

Shri Rahul Baid

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent

Delhi II

Excise Appeal No. 2895 -2897 of 2011 - Ex (SM)

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 173-176/CE/GZB /2011-12 dated 29.8.2011 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Ghaziabad ]

M/s. Arihanta Metal Co. Appellants

Shri Rahul Baid

Shri Sidharth Baid

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent

Ghaziabad

Excise Appeal No. 1527 of 2012 - Ex (SM)

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 48-CE/APPL-NOIDA /2012 dated 24.2.2012 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) NOIDA]

M/s. Fine Technologies (india) Pvt Ltd. Appellants

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent

NOIDA

Excise Appeal No. 1611- 1613 of 2012 - Ex (SM)

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 53-58/CE/APPL-IDA/2012 dated 29.02.2012 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) NOIDA]

M/s. Arihanta Metal Co. Appellants

Shri Sidharth Baid

Shri Rahul Baid

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent

NOIDA

Excise Appeal No. 55960, 56156 - 56158 of 2013 - Ex (SM)

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 285-288- CE/LDH /2012 dated 26.11.2012 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Ludhiana]

M/s. Mex Switchgears Pvt Ltd. Appellants

M/s. Arihanta Metal Co.

Shri Sidharth Baid

Shri Rahul Baid

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent

Ludhiana

Excise Appeal No. 57130 - 57147 of 2013 - Ex (SM)

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 466 - 483-SVS-GGN-2012 dated 21.12.2012 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Delhi III]

Commissioner of Central Excise Appellants

Delhi III

Vs.

Shri Sidharth Baid Respondent

M/s. Arihanta Metal Corporation

M/s. Arihanta Metal Corporation

Shri Sidharth Baid

M/s. Arihanta Metal Corporation

Shri Sidharth Baid

Shri Sidharth Baid

M/s. Arihanta Metal Corporation

Shri Sidharth Baid

Shri Sidharth Baid

Shri Sidharth Baid

M/s. Arihanta Metal Corporation

M/s. Arihanta Metal Corporation

Shri Sidharth Baid

Ellora Trading Ltd.

M/s. Arihanta Metal Corporation

M/s. Estech Enterprises

Excise Appeal No. 58169 - 58171 of 2013 - Ex (SM)

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 101 - 103-SVS-GGN-2013 dated 18.2.2013 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Delhi III]

Commissioner of Central Excise Appellants

Delhi III

Vs.

M/s. Arihanta Metal Corporation Respondent

Shri Sidharth Baid

M/s. Ajay Hardware Industries P Ltd.

Excise Appeal No. 54103 - 54105 of 2014 - Ex (SM)

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 105-107-CE/DLH/2014 dated 10.6.2014 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Delhi III]

M/s. Arihanta Metal Company Appellants

Shri Rahul Baid

Shri Sidharth Baid

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent

Delhi III

Excise Appeal No. 58247 of 2013 - Ex (SM)

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 139-SVS-GGN-2013 dated 7.3.2013 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Delhi III]

Commissioner of Central Excise Appellants

Delhi III

Vs.

M/s. Anu Industries. Respondent

Excise Appeal No. 3376 of 2010 - Ex (SM)

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 358-CE-APPL-D-II-2010 dated 27.7.2010 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Delhi II]

M/s. Woven Gold Bath Impressions Pvt. Ltd. Appellants.

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent

Delhi II

Excise Appeal No. 3473 of 2010 - Ex (SM)

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 359-CE-APPL-D-II-2010 dated 27.7.2010 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Delhi II]

M/s. Arihanta Metal Company Appellants.

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent

Delhi II

Appearance:

Shri B L Narasimhan, Shri Ravinder Singh, Ms. Seema Jain, Shri V K Gupta, Ms. Sukriti Das, and Shri Ravi Chopra, Advocates for the Appellants

Shri R K Mishra, AR for the Respondent

CORAM:

Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

ORDER NO. FO/ A / 51219-51376 /2015-Ex(SM)

Per Ashok Jindal :

The appellants namely, Arihanta Metal Company, Shri Rahul Baid and Shri Sidharth Baid are in appeals against the impugned orders.

2. The manufacturer buyers namely, Woven Gold Bath Impressions P Ltd.; M/s. DE-OR Metal Pvt Ltd.; M/s. Fine Technology (India) P Ltd.; and M/s. Gillard Radio Products Pvt Ltd.; M/s. Mex Switchgears Pvt. Ltd. are in appeal against the order of demand of interest and imposing the penalties.

3. The manufacturing buyers namely, M/s. Neha Enterprises, Swiss Auto, Bentex Motor Control Gear Industries are against the demanding of duty along with interest on denied Cenvat Credit and imposition of penalties.

4. Revenue is also in appeal against the manufacturer, buyers namely, M/s. Anu Industries Ltd., M/s. Estech Enterprises, M/s. Ellora Trading Ltd. and Ajay Hardware Industries Pvt. Ltd. for dropping the demand proposed and confirmed in the show cause notice along with interest and imposition of penalties and also in appeal against the dropping of penalties by learned Commissioner (Appeals) against M/s. Arihanta Metal Corpn, Sidharth Baid and Shri Rahul Baid.

5. As the issue involved in all the appeals is common, therefore all the appeals are taken up together for consideration and disposed of by a common order.

6. The facts of the case are that an investigation was conducted at the premises of M/s. Arihanta Metal Co.(AMCo), M/s. Arihanta Metal Corpn. (AMCorpn). It was revealed in the investigation that M/s. AMCo. & AMCorpn. are procuring brass circles, brass strips from M/s. Agarwal Metal Co. / Works who were the manufacturer of the same against duty paid invoices and thereafter M/s. AMCo. & AMCorpn are issuing invoices to various manufacturer buyers showing the description of goods as brass sheets without supplying the goods. M/s. AMCo. & AMCorpn. paid certain amounts towards duty payable on account of inadmissible Cenvat credit availed by manufacturer buyer during investigation itself. Thereafter, various show cause notices were issued to the manufacturer buyers, M/s. AMCo., M/s. AMCorpn. Shri Sidharth Baid and Shri Rahul Baid for denial of inadmissible Cenvat credit availed by manufacturer of buyers. Consequently duty on that account along with interest were demanded and proposing penalties to be imposed on the manufacture buyers, M/s. AMCo. & AMCorpn. Shri Rahul Baid and Shri Sidharth Baid. The show cause notices were adjudicated, the demands of duty proposed in the show cuasee notices were confirmed on the manufacturer buyers along with interest and in some cases the amount deposited by M/s. AMCo. & AMCorpn. were appropriated along with interest or without interest and penalties on all the manufacturer buyers, M/s. AMCo. & AMCorpn. and Shri Rahul Baid and Shri Sidharth Baid were imposed. All the aggrieved parties against order of adjudication filed the appeals before learned Commissioner (Appeals). In the cases, the invoices issued by M/s. Arihanta Metal Co., the adjudication orders were confirmed. Against these orders, the manufacturer buyers, AMCo., Shri Sidharth Baid and Shri Rahul Baid are in appeals before me.

7. In the case of invoices issued by M/s. Arihanta Metal Corpn., the amount paid by M/s. AM Corpn. was appropriated, the demand against manufacturer buyers were set aside and penalties imposed on manufacturer buyers, M/s. AM Corpn., Shri Sidharth Baid and Shri Rahul Baid were also dropped. Against these orders, Revenue is in appeal before me.

8. Therefore all the assessee are before me.

9. In these set of facts as the issue is common, therefore, I am deciding the issue by a common order.

10. The contentions of the Advocates appearing on behalf of the manufacturer buyer is that they have taken the Cenvat credit on the strength of invoices issued by AMCo. & AMCorpn. which were duty paid and all the particulars required as per Rule 9 of the CCR, 2004 are mentioned therein. Therefore, they have taken the Cenvat credit correctly. It is further submitted that description show in the invoices issued AMCo. & AMCorpn. is as per the goods received by them and M/s. AMCo. & AMCorpn. in their invoices have shown the description of goods of the manufacturer supplier is also brass sheets. Therefore, all the manufacturer buyers have taken Cenvat credit as per law. Moreover, the show cause notices have been issued by invoking the extended period of limitation. Therefore, the demands pertained to extended period of limitation are not sustainable. They also submitted that as in some cases the amount has been paid by AMCo. & AMCorpn. during the course of investigation, for that amount they are not contesting.

11. It is also submitted that in the case of CCE vs. Delhi Control Device [2013 (200) ECR 340] in similar set of facts, this Tribunal has observed as under:

3. The Revenues contention is that the evidence on record reveals that the registered dealer never received the brass sheet inasmuch as M/s. Agarwal was not manufacturing the brass sheet. There is no denial of the fact that the description of the goods was mentioned in the invoices issued by the registered dealer as only brass sheet and the same stands reflected by the appellant in their statutory records. The same have also been used in the manufacture of final products, on which duty has been paid by them. As such, I find no justifiable reasons to interfere in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Revenues appeal is rejected. 

Therefore, the Cenvat credit disallowed to the manufacturer buyer in the impugned proceedings be set aside. Consequently, demands of duty along with interest are not sustainable and penalties on all the manufacturer buyers are not sustainable.

12. On behalf of the M/s. AMCo. & AMCorpn., Shri Rahul Baid and Shri Sidharth Baid, it is submitted that Revenue has not adduced any evidence for non receipt of goods by M/s. AMCo. & AMCorpn. and thereafter supply of goods to the manufacturer / buyers. The Cenvat Credit sought to be denied only on the premise that the invoices issued by AMCo. & AMCorpn. have shown the description as brass sheets instead of brass circles / strips. For this, it is contended that brass sheet, brass circles / strips are falling under the same CTH and rate of duty is also same. This was only a clerical mistake of the clerk preparing the invoices who has shown description as brass sheets instead of brass circles/ strips. Therefore, without adducing any corroborative evidence, the penalty on AMCo. & AMCorpn., Shri Sidharth Baid, Shri Rahul Baid are not imposable.

13. On the other hand, learned ARs appearing on behalf of the Revenue, opposed the contention of the manufacturer buyer/ AMCo. & AMCorpn., Shri Rahul Baid, Shri Sidharth Baid. It is submitted that as the description of the goods did not tally with the description of the goods supplied by the manufacturer supplier. In that case, they are not entitled to take Cenvat credit and consequently same is required to be reversed along with interest and penalties are imposable. It is also submitted that M/s. AMCo. & AMCorpn. has paid certain amount during the course of investigation and same has not been contested which shows their intention to avail inadmissible credit by M/s AMCo. & AMCorpn. and consequently passing on the same to manufacturing buyer without supply of the goods. Therefore, the impugned orders dropping the proceedings against the manufacturer buyers and dropping penalties against Arihanta Metal Corpn., Shri Sidharth Baid and Shri Rahul Baid is to be set aside and impugned orders demanding duty from manufacturer buyers along with interest and imposing penalties on M/s. Arihanta Metal Co. manufacturer buyers and Shri Rahul Baid and Shri Sidharth Baid are to be confirmed.

14. Heard the parties. Considered the submissions.

15. In this case, M/s. Agarwal Metal Co. / Works is a manufacturer of brass strips/ circles and supplying the same to the Registered dealers, namely, M/s. AMCo. & AMCorpn. against duty paid invoices. Thereafter, these AMCo. & AMCorpn. are supplying the goods to manufacturer buyers and description was shown in the invoices as brass sheets instead of brass circles / strips. Apart from this evidence, no other corroborative evidence has been produced by the Revenue to allege that manufacturer buyers have received the invoices only but have not received the goods against these invoices. No investigation has been done at the end of transporter or check post to ascertain the facts against the impugned invoices, the manufacturer buyers had received goods or not. Moreover, no other corroborative evidence has been produced by the Revenue from where these goods i.e. brass sheets procured by manufacturer buyers. In the absence of any corroborative evidence, the Cenvat credit to manufacturer buyer cannot be denied. As the revenue has failed to prove the fact that these brass sheets have been clandestinely procured by the manufacturer buyer, therefore relying on the decision of Omex Auto Ltd. vs. CCE, Delhi III reported in [2012 (280) ELT 440 (Tri-Del)] wherein this Tribunal has observed as under:

6.?On careful consideration of the submissions made by both sides, I find that the short issue involved in this case is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellants are entitled to take cenvat credit on the strength of invoices where the goods described as C.R. Sheets instead of H.R. sheets or not? It is an admitted fact that the appellants have placed a purchase order for H.R. Sheets and physically received H.R. sheets in their factory which have been used by them in the manufacture of their final products. The only description mentioned in the invoice is C.R. Sheets instead H.R. Sheets. As per provisions of Rule 7(1)(a) where it has been clarified that the documents contains the details of duty or service taxable, description of the goods or assessable value, Central Excise or Service Tax registration number of the person issuing the invoice, name and address of the factory or warehouse or premises, the assessee is entitled to take cenvat credit. Although the description of the goods does not match with the actual receipt of the goods but the fact is not denied that these H.R. sheets have been received by the appellants in their factory. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to take cenvat credit on the goods received by them. It is not the allegation that the appellants had procured H.R. Sheets clandestinely without cover of invoice, therefore, the cenvat credit cannot be denied. In the case law cited by the learned Advocate, there is also discrepancy of the discretion of the goods as H.R. Sheets or H.R. Coils wherein the Tribunal has held that the cenvat credit is available on H.R. Sheets and the H.R. Sheets and H.R. Coils are the same. As the ratio laid down by the Tribunal in that case, although the submission of the learned Advocate that the description of the goods different but the fact is not denied, the appellants received the goods, therefore, the appellants are entitled to take credit. Hence, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential benefits.

16. I am of the view that Cenvat credit cannot be denied to manufacturer buyers. Further, in the case of Delhi Control Service this Tribunal (supra) has taken the same view. With these observations, the orders of denial of Cenvat credit to manufacturer buyers and consequently demand of duty along with interest are not sustainable. Therefore, the penalties on manufacturer buyers are not imposable. As in some cases, some amount has been paid by M/s. AMCo. & AMCorpn. during the course of investigation, that amount cannot be claimed by manufacturer buyer / M/s. AMCo. & AMCorpn. as refund, consequent to this order. As demand of duty against manufacturer buyers is not sustainable, consequently, penalties on manufacturer buyers cannot be imposed.

16. With regard to imposition of penalties on Arihanta Metal Co., Arihanta Metal Corpn., Shri Sidharth Baid and Shri Rahul Baid, I find that description of goods on the invoices issued by AMCo. & AMCorpn. did not match with the invoices issued by manufacturer supplier i.e. Agarwal Metal, therefore they have contravened the provisions of Central Excise Rules, 2002 . Consequently, penalty under Rule 27 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 is imposable on M/s. Arihanta Metal Corpn. and M/s. Arihanta Metal Company. Therefore, penalty on M/s. Arihanta Metal Corpn. And Arihanta Metal Co. is imposed to Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) for each case/ appeal/show cause notice. The penalties of Shri Sidharth Baid and Shri Rahul Baid are dropped.

17. From the above discussion, it is concluded as under:-

(a) Appeals filed by manufacturer buyers are allowed with consequential relief (if any).

(b) Appeals filed by Revenue against manufacturer buyers, Shri Sidharth Baid and Shri Rahul Baid are dismissed.

(c ) Amount paid by M/s. AMCs during investigation is not refundable as the same is not in dispute.

(d) Appeals filed by Shri Sidharth Baid and Shri Rahul Baid are allowed.

(e) Appeals filed by M/s. AMCs, the penalty of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) is confirmed in each appeal.

(f) In Appeals filed by Revenue against the M/s. AM Corpn., the penalty of Rs.5000/- is imposed in each appeal.

18. In these terms all the appeals are disposed of. Cross objections filed by some of the parties are also disposed of in the above terms.

(Pronounced in the open court on )

( Ashok Jindal ) Member(Judicial)

ss

??

??

??

??

21