TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 857X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ansporters were recorded by Maharashtra Sales Tax Authorities in their own language ‘Hindi’, which indicate that the inputs in fact have been transported and delivered to the factory of main appellant or to its two job workers at Vasai, which contradict the statements recorded by DGCEI in English. The two set of statements of the same persons on the same issue of transportation of inputs by two investigating authorities are contradictory to each other. The report of MVAT authorities also revealed that the two job workers of the main appellant have very large manufacturing capacity & have huge machinery for manufacture, and had incurred huge electricity expenditure. We note that the copy of the said MVAT Report was not properly appreciated by the adjudicating authority. We also find that the adjudicating authority has nowhere tried to verify from the records of the Deputy/ Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction over the factory of the main appellant to know whether any additional intimations have been filed mentioning the names and addresses of more job workers. Order passed by the adjudicating authority is set-aside and matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authorit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . C. Patel (Advocate) for the main appellant and its Director, argued as under: (a) That apart from export of manufactured goods under rebate claim, the Mumbai office of the main appellant also undertakes export of stainless steel utensils (purchased by Mumbai office) as Merchant Exporter under claim for drawback; (b) That the duty paid inputs were actually received by main appellant as evidenced by the verification reports dated 10.03.2006 and 22.03.2006 drawn by the jurisdictional Range Superintendent/ Inspector which were corroborated by verification reports of jurisdictional officers against each export under ARE 2. The statements of the transporters, recorded by Maharashtra Sales Tax Authorities in their known language Hindi , prove that the inputs had been transported and delivered to the factory premises of the main appelalnt or to its two job workers at Vasai, which contradict the statements recorded by DGCEI in English. These transporters have confirmed transportation of inputs from main appellant s factory to its two job workers situated at Vasai. The input suppliers of Rajasthan namely Kartik Ramesh Shah, Director of Shah Foils Limited and Shri Suresh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ges 1354 to 1361 - Vol. 8, obtained by the DGCEI, also proves that all the trucks with goods under claim of rebate had arrived from Umargaon Gujarat as per excise invoices, and not from Maharashtra. This is further corroborated by the DGCEI case Diary at Page No. 1552-1590 (Vol 9) . Export from HKI - UM - JNPT - CONCOR - The records of transport of Finished goods from HKI (Gujarat) of 3,91,510.900 Kgs and 22,10,219.480 Kgs on 130 vehicles as per ARE-2 and Excise Inv, through Nhava Sheva Port, also stands confirmed by the CONCOR. (d) That the Revenue s allegation of showing export of Stainless Steel Utensils from Umbergaon factory after procuring the same from manufacturers of Delhi for export under claim of rebate is unsustainable, as the Mumbai office of the main appellant had actually purchased more than 1652 tonnes (against 104 tonnes alleged to have been purchased from Delhi based manufacturers) of stainless steel utensils during the period 2004-05 and 2005-06 against export of 1652 tonnes without claim of rebate. Further, main appellant had actually exported 2601 tonnes of stainless steel utensils during 2004-05 and 2005-06 as against alleged purchase of 104 tonnes from D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the two job workers AIPL and BSW, which was not obtained by the Sr. IO. The Maharashtra VAT Report dated 29.12.2008 corroborates that the job workers had a very large manufacturing capacity have huge machinery for manufacture, had incurred huge electricity expenditure, and that the manufactured goods with scrap was returned back to main appellants factory at Umargaon under proper challans and documents. (g) That the adjudicating authority has seriously erred in not granting cross-examination of the witnesses whose statements have been used against them particularly when they have rendered contradictory statements to various authorities on the same issue as described above, and since in none of the statements before DGCEI the address of places in Maharashtra where the goods were allegedly disposed of have been given. Since the adjudicating authority did not grant cross examination, it was not open to him to rely on the statements recorded by DGCEI. He cited the following case laws in this context: (i) Nico Extrusions P. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Vapi - [2009 (248) ELT 497 (Tri. Ahmd.)]; (ii) CCE C Vs. Rikhab Mehta - [2010 (259) ELT 518 (Guj.); (iii) Bas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocuments using a shredder machine as detailed in Panchnama drawn at Gala No. 68, A-2, Shah and Nahar Industrial Estate, Lower Parel, Mumbai on 27.03.2006. Shri Chhabra was found present during Panchnama proceedings carried out by DGCEI officers on 29.03.2006 at job worker premises of M/s Adikanksha Impex, 1 Swamini Industrial Extate, Vasai (East), wherein he introduced himself as Production Supervisor of HKI-Guj and confirmed and accepted the panchmana proceedings and also confirmed that goods shown to be sent under job work challan from HKI-Guj were not available in the said job worker premises. Similarly, after retraction of statement dated 27.03.2006 vide his letter dated 28.03.2006, a number of summons were issued to Shri Pawan Dhasriwal and he ultimately appeared and tendered further statement dated 08.05.2007, wherein he confirmed what he had stated in his statement dated 27.03.2006. The statement of Shri Dhasriwal is also corroborated by the facts mentioned in Panchnama dated 27.03.2006, statement dated 27.03.2006 of Shri Chhabra, Panchnamas dated 29.03.2006 drawn at the premises of the job workers M/s Balaji Metal Works M/s Adikanksha Impex with regard to non sending of r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e allegation made in the present proceedings are based on the functioning of the appellant unit and the job workers during the period from October 2004 to March 2006. (g) That the statements made before the Maharashtra Value Added Tax (MVAT) authorities were for the period April 2008 to January 2009, which cannot be applied to the present proceedings which are for the period October, 2004 to March 2006. (h) That the appellant has heavily relied upon the so called verification reports dated 10.03.2006 and 22.03.2006 of the jurisdictional Range Officers to prove their case that inputs were actually received by HKI-Guj. He argued that the verification by the jurisdictional Range Officers on these dates was not for physical verification of inputs, but it was verification of input/ output ratio by conducting a sample manufacture to test check the quantity of waste arising during the course of manufacture of specific export goods. (i) That most of the L/Rs of input suppliers bear the stamp of Bhilad Check Post of Gujarat. He argued that there is a flowing way for reaching GIDC Umbergaon on NH-8 before Bhilad Check Post for the vehicles coming from Rajasthan side if the vehicle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mited and Shri Suresh Chandera Mohnot of Mohnot Metals have also deposed before the Maharashtra Value Added Tax (MVAT) authorities that the inputs were delivered at the premises of the main appellant or at the premises of the two job workers at Vasai. Thus, the two set of statements of the same persons on the same issue of transportation of inputs by two investigating authorities are contradictory to each other. The report of MVAT authorities also revealed that the two job workers of the main appellant have very large manufacturing capacity have huge machinery for manufacture, and had incurred huge electricity expenditure. We note that the copy of the said MVAT Report was not properly appreciated by the adjudicating authority. We also find that the adjudicating authority has nowhere tried to verify from the records of the Deputy/ Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction over the factory of the main appellant to know whether any additional intimations have been filed mentioning the names and addresses of more job workers. The main appellant has placed on record that such additional intimations were actually filed with jurisdictional DC/ AC, which may have bearing on the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
