Case Law Details
Dolphin Metals I Ltd Vs C.C.E. (CESTAT Ahmedabad)
The brief facts of the case are that based on the intelligence, an investigation was undertaken against M/s Nisha Industries which revealed that the appellant had wrongly availed CENVAT credit on invoices without actual receipt of inputs; that the finished goods were found at both the manufacturing and dealer’s premises which were not accounted for; that the finished goods were also removed without payment of duty. The appellant herein is one of the suppliers of the said Cenvatable inputs on which M/s Nisha Industries had availed Cenvat Credit allegedly without actual receipt of goods.
The entire case was made out on the basis of the vehicles which were shown to have transported the goods were not capable to transport such bulky goods. The appellant’s defense on this is that there is a clerical error in mentioning the vehicle no.; that instead of GJ 2V 5889, dispatch clerk wrote the vehicle no. as GJ 2Y 5889. Similarly instead of GJ 18U 1999, it should be GJ 8U 1999. I find that there is no corroboration to this submission of the appellant that whether the goods were transported through the vehicle claimed by them. Therefore, this defense of the appellant is of no help to them. It is also a fact on record that M/s Nisha Industries who had availed the Cenvat Credit against the demand of Cenvat Credit amount, they had opted for the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy & Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. Though the opting of SVLDRS should not have any bearing on the other cases who are contesting before this Tribunal but it shows that M/s Nisha Industries has accepted the demand of fraudulent Cenvat Credit. Accordingly, the appellant is liable for penalty under Rule 26 (2) for wrongly passing of the credit. However, penalty imposed is maximum amount which is provided in the Rule 26 (2) (ii). Considering overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the appellant deserve some leniency on the quantum of penalty. Accordingly, I reduce the penalty from Rs. 12,94,547/- to Rs. 5,00,000/-.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT AHMEDABAD ORDER
The brief facts of the case are that based on the intelligence, an investigation was undertaken against M/s Nisha Industries which revealed that the appellant had wrongly availed CENVAT credit on invoices without actual receipt of inputs; that the finished goods were found at both the manufacturing and dealer’s premises which were not accounted for; that the finished goods were also removed without payment of duty. The appellant herein is one of the suppliers of the said Cenvatable inputs on which M/s Nisha Industries had availed Cenvat Credit allegedly without actual receipt of goods. A show cause notice was issued to M/s Nisha Industries along with other noticees including the present appellant wherein it was alleged:
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
