9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 1021X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e said manufacturing unit as also on Shri Durga Dutt Jindal, partner of the manufacturing unit. 2. As per facts on record M/s. Sarila Steel Rolling Mills Hisar is engaged in the manufacture of M S girders etc. falling under Chapter 72 and were availing the benefit of Cenvat credit of duty paid on the inputs received by them. The present demand stand confirmed by denying them the Cenvat credit of duty availed on the basis of invoices issued by manufacturer M/s. Haryana Steel and Alloys Ltd. Sonipat (hereinafter referred to as HSAL). 3. It is seen that based upon certain intelligence, investigations were conducted by DGCEI at the end of M/s. HSAL and the searches were conducted at their premises on 6.9.05. Based upon the evidence collected, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nufactured by M/s. HSAL to Jodhpur and sometimes to Ahmedabad; that he was supplying blank GRs to the representative of M/s. HSAL, who were keeping the GRs of their company at their factory premises; that the GRs were being prepared by the employees of M/s. HSAL. Statement of Shri Vijay Kumar, Manager of M/s. Bedi Golden Transport Company was also recorded on 19.5.06 wherein he agreed with the statement made by Shri Jasbir Singh. 6. Statement of Shri Jaspal Singh of National Freight Carrier was recorded on 19.4.06 wherein he agreed that supply of trucks to M/s. Bedi Golden Transport Company and further clarifying that the trucks were being used for transportation of the goods from the factory of HSAL to Wazirpur and Jahangir Puri in Delhi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9. After hearing both sides duly represented by Shri Jitin Singhla learned Advocate appearing for the appellant and Shri M S Negi, learned DR appearing for the Revenue, I find that the appellants main contention is that apart from the statement of Executive Director of M/s. HSAL and Bedi Golden Transport Company and the owners of the truck, there is no other evidence to show that appellants have not received the inputs. The invoices stand duly issued by M/s. HSAL along with issuance of GRs of M/s. Bedi Golden Transport Company and they have duly entered the inputs in their statutory records. Learned Advocate submits that the Revenue has not produced any evidence for diversion of the inputs by M/s. HSAL to any other party or procurement of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Cenvatable invoices issued by M/s HSAL, without actually receiving the inputs. The investigations conducted at the end of the manufacturer, transporter as also the appellant resulted in emergence of evidence clearly pointing out to the fact of wrong availment of credit. The manufacturer's statement is not a general statement laying down in some cases the credit has been based on without the corresponding supply of goods. It is a specific statement laying down that only Cenvatable invoices were issued in the name of the appellant whereas the inputs were diverted to other manufacturer at Jodhpur and Ahmedabad. The matter does not rest at this point only. Revenue has conducted further investigations from the transporters as also from the owne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd by the Revenue. It was, in these circumstances, Tribunal held that the Cenvat credit cannot be denied. However, in the present case, I find that there are not only the statements of the manufacturer but statements of the transporters as also the statements of the appellant's own authorised representative accepting such a situation. All the said statements are corroborative of each other and point out to only one fact that no inputs were received by the appellant. 12. The appellant's reliance on the Tribunal's decision in the case of Arvind Enterprises Vs. CCE, Delhi-IV - 2013 (296) ELT 253 (Tri.-Del.) is also not applicable, inasmuch as in that case the appellant had received the goods from the registered dealer, who had in turn receive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made in the order of original adjudicating authority, I find that the Settlement by M/s. HSAL was in respect of the credit so availed by them in respect of their inputs and was not relatable to duty payment on the final product, which were actually not supplied by them and only cenvatable invoices were issued. Infact the said settlement of the issue before the Settlement Commission by M/s. HSAL advances Revenues case that they were actually not supplying any final product to the other manufacturing unit and were only creating the cenvatable invoices. 15. In view of the above, I find no justification for allowing the Cenvat credit. As regards penalty on M/s. Sarila Steel Rolling Mills, the same is liable to be imposed to the extent of 100% ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
