Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2015 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (7) TMI 457 - AT - Central ExciseCredit on the basis of forged invoice – Bogus purchase - Imposition of penalty - Held that:- as the investigation in the present case was started consequent to the investigation against SSMIPL by the jurisdictional Commissioner. We also note that there are some minor differences which have been highlighted by the learned counsels for the appellants. We have given considerable thought to those differences but in our view, those minor differences will not make any difference in the conclusion - appellant is a very well established company and producers of various steel and alloy steel items and, therefore, they would have far better knowledge about different types of scrap and it also appears that they are placing the order with certain gradation of scrap such as grade I, grade II etc. On receipt of scrap, gradations were analysed and indicated. We note that in respect of the invoices under discussion, none of the standard operating procedures made by the appellant themselves was followed. This itself indicates that there was a tactical support from some people within the organization. There is no explanation whatsoever from the appellant s side why the operating procedures prescribed by themselves were not being followed in these cases It is strange that the appellant has placed order to the three dealers of scrap but all the three dealers of scrap in turn got the invoices of SSMIPL. There are evidences that none of the goods have moved from the godown of SSMIPL and on the contrary there are evidences that the goods have moved from godown of such dealers. Further, while the excise invoices were raised by SSMIPL, the commercial invoices were raised by three dealers or appellant No.3,4 & 5. The main appellant was making payment to appellant No.3,4 & 5 and not to SSMIPL. Even after the issue of the show cause notice, the least that was expected was that the main appellant or appellant No.3,4 & 5 could have produced transporter and the drivers to prove that the goods have moved from the godown of SSMIPL and not from any other place. This has not been done for obvious reason as the goods have not moved from the godown of SSMIPL but from various other places. Goods covered by the invoices of SSMIPL have never moved to the main appellant s factory and some other goods have moved. The appellant cannot take the credit of the duty paid shown in such invoices. - Decided against the assessee. Levy of penalty on dealers / sellers issuing bogus invoice - Held that:- The person who purports to sell goods cannot say that he was not a person concerned with the selling of goods and merely issued invoice or that he did not contravene a provision relating to evasion of duty. The appellant issued invoices without delivery of goods with intent to enable evasion of duty to which effect a finding has been recorded and which finding has not been challenged. We are, thus, unable to hold that appellant was not liable to pay any penalty. - Decision in the case of Bhagwati Steelcast Ltd. vs. CCE, Nashik reported in [2013 (1) TMI 123 - CESTAT MUMBAI] followed - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
|