Appeal No. E/1941-1943/2010 (Arising out of OIA-SKSS/195-197/VAPI/2010 dated 22.09.2010, Passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, & S.T., Vapi) and Order Nos. A/10464-10466/2015. Case: New India Cuprotech and Ors. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T.. CEGAT (Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal) & CESTAT (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal)

Case NumberAppeal No. E/1941-1943/2010 (Arising out of OIA-SKSS/195-197/VAPI/2010 dated 22.09.2010, Passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, & S.T., Vapi) and Order Nos. A/10464-10466/2015
CounselFor Appellant: Dimple Gohil, Advocate and For Respondents: G.P. Thomas, Authorised Representative
JudgesP.K. Das, Member (J)
IssueExcise
Judgement DateMay 01, 2015
CourtCEGAT (Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal) & CESTAT (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal)

Order:

P.K. Das, Member (J), (West Zonal Bench At Ahmedabad)

  1. All these appeals are arising out of a common order and therefore, all are taken up together for disposal.

  2. The relevant facts of the case in brief, are that the appellant No. 1 M/s. New India Cuprotech was engaged in the manufacture of Copper Ingots, Copper billets, Copper flats/bar, Copper strips, Copper Rods, Copper Wires and other articles of copper classifiable under Chapter 74 of the schedule of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They were availing CENVAT credit benefit under CENVAT Credit Rules. On 27.03.2008, the Central Excise officers of Preventive Section, Vapi Commissionerate visited the appellant's factory and searched the premises. The said officers seized several records including input invoices for the period March 2004 to March 2008. It has also recorded the statement of various persons including Shri Vishnu Agarwal, partner and Shri Kalpesh Rathod, Manager-cum-Authorised Signatory and the transporters.

  3. A Show Cause Notice dated 30.03.2009 was issued by the Joint Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs, Vapi proposing the demand of CENVAT credit amounting to Rs. 32,08,820/- alongwith interest and penalty of equal amount of CENVAT credit on the appellant No. 1. It has also proposed to impose penalty on the other appellants. It has been alleged that during the period from March 2004 to March 2008, the appellant availed CENVAT credit on the basis of CENVAT invoices, without actual receipt of the inputs. By the adjudication order, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of wrongly availed CENVAT credit of Rs. 32,08,820/-alongwith interest and imposed penalty of equal amount of duty. It has appropriated the amount as already paid by the appellant. It has imposed penalty of Rs. 4 Lakhs and Rs. 1 Lakh on Shri Vishnu Agarwal, Partner and Shri Kalpesh Rathod, Manager-cum-Authorised Signatory, respectively, (Appellant No. 2 and 3 herein). By the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order and rejected the appeals filed by the appellants.

  4. Learned Advocate on behalf of the appellants submits that there is no dispute that the input supplier delivered the materials to the appellant, accompanied with the Central Excise invoices and were duly recorded in their CENVAT records and also used in the manufacture of final products, cleared on payment of duty. It is submitted that the invoices were sent to the concerned jurisdictional...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT