TMI Blog2010 (1) TMI 1004X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing Cenvat Credit on the basis of bogus invoices without receiving any material and, simultaneously issuing invoices to their customers without supplying any material enabling them to take Cenvat credit without receiving any material. One of their customers was found to be the respondent in this case. On further investigation, it was found that the respondents had taken Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 3.3,092/- on the basis of six invoices bearing Nos. 045 dated 15-7-2001, 052 dated 26-8-2001, 061 dated 1-11-2001, 062 dated 26-11-2001, 158 dated 20-12-2002 and 011 dated 15-4-2002. Statement of Shri Rajesh Jain, proprietor of M/s. Satvik Industries had been recorded on 18-18-2003, 6-3-2003 2-4-2004, wherein he had stated that they had only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aud or guilty of willful mis-statement or suppression of facts with intent to evade the payment of duty. It is against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the present appeal has been filed by the Revenue. 2. None appeared on behalf of the respondents, though notice for hearing had been sent well in time. There is also no request for adjournment form the respondent. In view of this, and since the amount involved is very small the matter was taken up for hearing. 3. Heard Shri R.K. Saini, learned D.R., who reiterated the grounds of appeal in the Revenue s appeal. He pleaded that the Commissioner (Appeals) has ignored the statements of Shri Rajesh Jain of Satvik Industries and also the fact that while a quantity of 500 to 600 kgs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the statements of Shri Rajesh Jain recorded at the back of the appellant, have very little evidentiary value is not correct. Circumstances of this case clearly indicate that no material had been supplied and only invoices had been issued by M/s. Satvik Industries enabling the respondents to avail Cenvat credit. Since, this is a case of fraudulently availment of Cenvat credit without receiving any material longer period of limitation is invokable and on this point also finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) is incorrect. In view of the above discussion, I hold that the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is not sustainable. The same is set aside and the order-in-original passed by the Asst. Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
