9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 871X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e goods that were received. The officers verified the purchase and sale documents of M/s. Leadsman Enterprises & M/s. Sri Amman Steels. On verification of the purchases, it was found that these two second stage dealers took credit based on invoices from M/s Sri Karpagam Steels, Coimbatore, showing sale of MS Wire Coils to them. Such wire coils were disposed of by the first stage dealer itself to other parties who were not interested in taking Cenvat credit. The first stage dealer issued invoices showing duty payment to these second stage dealers who in turn sold non-duty paid scrap showing duty payment based on such fraudulent credit. Therefore, Revenue initiated action for recovery of such credit in the hands of the appellant amounting to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e also stated that he did not notice that the purchase prices of the goods by the dealers, M/s. Sri Amman Steel and M/s. Leadsman Enterprises were mentioned as Rs. 26/- per kg in the invoices but the sale price of these dealers to them was in the range of Rs.16/- to Rs. 17/- per kg. 4. The statement of Shri Rajkumar, Proprietor of M/s. Leadsman Enterprises confirmed that he had not bought any goods from M/s. Karpagam Steel but only invoices were obtained. The invoice value of goods was paid by cheques using cash given by Mr. Murugappan of M/s. Sri Karpagam Steel. Further, he had also paid 50% to 70% of Cenvat credit involved in the transaction also to Mr. Murugappan. Shri G. Bhaskaran, Proprietor of M/s Amman Steels also gave such statemen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... escription of goods should be different from the actual nature of the goods received by the appellant. So, he submits that the detailed order given by lower authorities may be upheld. 8. I find that the fact that the duty payment against which appellant had taken credit was not relating to material used in manufacture by the appellant is fairly clear. The defence of the appellant is that they were not aware of the fraudulent nature of the document. I am not in agreement with this defence because of the inherent contradictions that can be seen in the document with regard to price and also the mismatch of the description of goods vis-à-vis., goods received by the appellant. The fact that they had accounted the raw material and paid du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
