9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 885X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 1985. The respondent also avails CENVAT credit of duty paid on inputs and capital goods. On the basis of proceedings against M/s. Simandhar Steel Movers (I) P. Ltd. and M/s. Simandhar Enterprises, they were alleged to have been passing CENVAT credit fraudulently by procuring bogus invoices and passing CENVAT credit wrongly without physical movement of Cenvatable inputs to their customers. It was alleged against the respondent that the invoices, on the basis of which the respondent availed CENVAT credit is not admissible, the same being fraudulently issued which fact, Shri M.D. Sharma, Manager - Commerce of the respondent, admitted in his statement recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Thereafte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om any infirmities. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions and perused the records. 6.1 This is a second round of litigation. Earlier, the Tribunal has remanded the case to the lower appellate authority to pass a speaking order on all the issues. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) in his order found that - "From the records it is noticed that, adjudicating authority in its findings in order-in-original No. 20/CEX/AC/06 dt. 01.11.2006 has confirmed from the Xerox copies of GRN and Octroi receipts produced by M/s. R.L. Steel Ltd., that they have not only received the invoices but also received the goods in their factory. It was further observed by the adjudicating authority that no evidences are on the record that ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... traders mentioned in Question No.5 above are fraudulent we are agreed to reverse the inadmissible credit total Rs. 83,119/- under protest." 6.3 It is pertinent to note that expression 'fraudulent' forming part of the statement does not figure in the show-cause notice. So far as the Tribunal's decision in the case of Darshan Industries (supra) cited by the learned JDR is concerned I find that the Tribunal's decision related to dealers invoices which were not in terms of normal course of trade and were not in existence when credit was taken which is not the case in hand. Similarly the Tribunal's decision in the case of Sundesh Springs Pvt. Ltd. and Others (supra) relates to availment of CENVAT credit on the basis of bogus invoices without ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
