TMI Blog2005 (12) TMI 343X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the name of the appellant/assessee. 2. As regards the name of the appellant/assessee, the learned counsel for the applicant fairly stated that the mistake had occurred before the Commissioner and that the wrong name was shown in the appeal which was filed before this Tribunal by the present applicants. Therefore, there was no mistake apparent from the record of the Tribunal in so far as the name of the appellant was concerned because the appellant themselves gave that name which according to the learned counsel was the same when the Commissioner made the order. 3. So far as the contention that a mistake has crept in Paragraph 5 of the final order is concerned, on a careful scrutiny, this seemingly innocuous contention is devoid of an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmissioner in the discussions and findings portion of his order dated 28-3-2002 had held as under : I find that the main issue in this case is that the party had taken modvat credit on the invoices issued by M/s. R.K. Enterprises without physically/actually receiving the goods in their factory. This fact is sufficiently corroborative on the strength of the statement of Shri R.K. Gupta, Proprietor of M/s. R.K. Enterprises, tendered under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 that the transport companies mentioned on the G.R. Books were fictitious and were used to cover the bogus transactions of delivery of goods, so sold by him. From this very statement, it is crystal clear that no goods were transported to the buyers and as such the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al use to keep, store, receive, send excisable goods against genuine modvatable invoices and appellant No. 1 did not take reasonable steps under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and took inadmissible modvat credit against unacceptable invoices of M/s. R.K. Enterprises, all of these were involved in fraud and collusion inasmuch as the modvat credit was passed/availed for ulterior motives with intent to evade duty of excise which was otherwise payable by appellant No 1 had they not taken wrong and admissible modvat/cenvat credit . 6. It is clear that the Tribunal had confirmed the concurrent findings of the authorities below after considering the submissions of both sides in the aforesaid Paragraph 5 of its final order. The learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
