- (1.) Delay of two days in filing the appeal is condoned.
(2.) This appeal has been preferred by the revenue under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short "the Act") against the order dated 20.4.2015 (Annexure A-3) passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") claiming the following substantial questions of law:- (i) Whether the Assessee is entitled to avail Cenvat Credit on the invoices issued by M/s Arihant Metal Corporation without actually receiving the goods (ii) Whether the Assessee has contravened Rules 4 and 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and is liable for penalty under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 (iii) Whether M/s J.D. Auto had suppressed the material facts with the sole and wilful intent to avail inadmissible cenvat credit and have, thus, contravened the provisions of Central Excise Act, 1944 and the rules thereunder
(3.) A few facts necessary for adjudication of the instant appeal as narrated therein may be noticed. The assessee is engaged in the manufacture of terminals for wiring harness. The information was received that M/s Arihant Metal Corporation, Gurgaon (in short "the Corporation"), a registered dealer, was dealing in goods like brass sheets, circles, brass strips, copper strips etc. and is purchasing the said items mainly from M/s Agarwal Metal Works Pvt. Ltd., Rewari. It was found that the Corporation had altered the description of the goods, i.e. brass circles as brass sheets and brass strips as brass sheets etc. in the invoices to facilitate the buyers to avail inadmissible Cenvat Credit without actually receiving the goods. By adopting this modus operandi the Corporation diverted the duty paid brass circles/strips/sheets purchased from M/s Agarwal Metal Works Pvt. Ltd. in the open market. On the basis of the said information, summons were issued to the Corporation, M/s Agarwal Metal Works Pvt. Ltd. and M/s J.D. Auto. Statements of various persons were recorded on different dates. Accordingly, a show cause notice dated 8.10.2010 was issued to the assessee for recovery of inadmissible Cenvat Credit of Rs. 33,13,670/- along with interest and penalty. The Corporation was also called upon through the said notice to show cause as to why the penalty should not be imposed upon them under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 (for brevity "the 2002 Rules"). The Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 1.2.2012 (Annexure A-1) confirmed the said recovery of Cenvat Credit of Rs. 33,13,670/- along with interest from the respondent-assessee and also imposed penalty of equal amount. Penalties of Rs. 33,13,670/- was imposed on the Corporation under Rule 26(i) and (ii) of the 2002 Rules and Rs. 1,00,000/- was imposed on Shri Sidharth Baid, partner and authorized signatory of the Corporation. Feeling aggrieved by the order, Annexure A-1, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) who vide order dated 6.3.2013 (Annexure A-2) allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Adjudicating Authority. The revenue assailed the order, Annexure A-2, in appeal before the Tribunal whereas the respondent filed cross-objections. The Tribunal vide order dated 20.4.2015 (Annexure A-3) dismissed the appeal, upheld the order, Annexure A-2 and disposed of the cross-objections. Hence, the present appeal.;