B. Ravichandran ORDER
S.K. Mohanty, Member (J)
1. These appeals are directed against the impugned order dated 25.08.2014 passed by the Ld. Commissioner, Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Bhopal. Vide the impugned order, the Ld. adjudicating authority has dropped the Duty demand of Rs. 1,27,29,183/- against the assessee-appellant M/s. Manish Industries. However, cenvat credit of Rs. 18,85,971/- was disallowed and equal amount of penalty was imposed on it under Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Further, demand of Rs. 72,02,038/- was also confirmed against the assessee-appellant along with imposition of equivalent amount of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Besides, the impugned order has also imposed penalties on the other appellants namely, Shri Rajneesh Agarwal, Shri Mukesh Sangla and M/s. AVM Brothers under Rule 26 of rules. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order, the above appellants have filed appeals before the Tribunal. The Revenue is also in appeal before the Tribunal, against dropping of demand of Rs. 1,27,29,183/- by the Ld. adjudicating authority.
2. The Brief facts of the case are that based upon search by the officers of Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence, Regional Unit, Indore, the assessee-appellant was issued with the Show Cause Notice dated 05.05.2009 on the ground that it had received only invoices, without accompanying goods i.e. plastic granules from M/s. Signet Overseas Ltd. (SOL) and associates and availed Cenvat credit, based on such invoices. The statement of Transporters, employees of M/s. SOL and its records were relied upon to make such allegations. It was also alleged that on enquiry from the office of RTO, some of the vehicles used for transportation of goods to the assessee-appellant were found to be Tankers, Auto Rickshaws, Scooter and Motor Cycles, which were not capable of transporting the impugned goods. It was thus, proposed to disallow the cenvat credit of Rs. 1,56,07,771/- to the assessee-appellant. Further, a demand of Central Excise duty of Rs. 72,02,038/- along with penalty was proposed against the assessee-appellant on the ground that it had cleared finished goods and inputs to M/s. AVM Brothers, New Delhi and other parties. The computer records maintained by the assessee-appellant and transit passes of M/s. Dashmesh Roadlines were relied upon to frame the charges.
3. The Adjudicating authority vide the impugned order has held that the proposed cenvat demand of Rs. 1,27,29,183/-, out of Rs. 1,56,07,771/- made against the assessee-appellant on the ground of non-receipt of plastic granules is not sustainable. However, he has confirmed the demand of Rs. 18,85,971/-, on the ground that the vehicles being tankers etc., were not capable of transportation of the subject goods. He also confirmed demand of Rs. 72,02,038/- on the ground that the assessee-appellant had cleared raw material and finished goods to M/s. AVM Brothers and others.
4. The Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants reiterated the submissions made in the ground of appeal. He also filed written submissions. In Revenue's appeal, he referred to and relied on the submissions of the appellant made in the cross objection. He also submitte........