Shri Manoj Khandelwal & vs Cce, Delhi-Iv, Faridabad

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.107-111/CE/Appl/DLH-IV/2013 dated 19.07.2013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, Faridabad]

For approval and signature:

HONBLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) 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?

Shri Manoj Khandelwal & M/s.Marathon Motors India (P) Ltd. Appellant Vs.

CCE, Delhi-IV, Faridabad  Respondent

Present for the Appellant : Shri Vivek Agarwal, Advocate Present for the Respondent: Shri G.R. Singh, D.R.

Coram: HONBLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Date of Hearing/Decision: 22.09.2015

FINAL ORDER NO. __54278-54279/2015_

PER: S.K. MOHANTY

Brief facts of the case are that the appellant manufactures electrical coolers on which resin is used as input. During the disputed period, the appellant had purchased the said input from M/s. Jagriti Rasins Pvt. Ltd. Officers of Central Excise Department visited the factory of M/s. Jagriti Rasins Pvt. Ltd. and detected that without supplying the goods, fake invoices were issued in favour of the buyers, entitling them to take cenvat credit. Based on such investigation, the jurisdictional Central Excise Authorities initiated proceedings for denial of cenvat credit and for imposition of penalty both on the appellant and its Director.

3. The ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that penalty imposed on M/s. Jagruti Resins Pvt. Ltd. was set aside by the Tribunal vide Final Order No. A 50824-50862/15/SM (Br.) dated 25.03.2015. Thus, the allegation that the goods were not received by the appellant from the said supplier is not tenable, and therefore, the demand cannot be sustained against the appellant.

4. The ld. D.R. for Revenue reiterates the findings recorded in the impugned order.

6. I have gone through the final order dated 25.03.2015 passed by this Tribunal in the case of the supper of goods M/s. Jagruti Resins Pvt. Ltd. The relevant paragraphs in the said order are extracted below:-

9. To conclude the discussion, I find that the only basis to deny the Cenvat Credit to the manufacturer buyer is that the vehicles involved were not used in transportation of the goods in question. But revenue has failed to prove the charge with any corroborative evidence for reliance of the statement of the transporter in question which are analyzed here in above in detail. Therefore, the allegation that vehicles were not used in transportation of goods is not sustainable. Consequently the allegation for non transportation of goods is set aside.

10. In view of the above, the Cenvat Credit to the manufacturer buyer of the goods in question cannot be denied. Consequently, the demand of duty along with interest is not sustainable.

11. As demand of duty is not sustainable, consequently penalties on all the appellants are not sustainable. Therefore, the impugned orders are set aside. Appeals of appellants except revenues are allowed with consequential relief if any. In view of the above observations also, the appeals filed by the Revenue deserves no merit and hence same are dismissed.

7. In view of above, since the proceedings were dropped against the supplier of the goods, the receipt of goods in question by the appellant M/s.Marathone Motors India Pvt. Ltd. and use of the same in or in relation to manufacture of final product cannot be questioned, and as such, the duty demand confirmed and penalty imposed on both the appellants cannot be sustained. Therefore, the impugned orders are set aside and the appeals are allowed in favour of the appellants with consequential benefit, if any, as per law.

(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)

(S.K. MOHANTY) MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Anita 0 3