9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 655X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted at Himachal Pradesh and is engaged in manufacture of steel ingots from melting iron and steel scrap. The scrap is procured from the dealers located in Mandi Govind Garh as well as import through ICDs situated in Punjab. Till 2000, the respondent was working under compounded levy scheme, there is no dispute. As the State of Punjab and Himachal Pradesh are involved in transactions of the respondent who has set up sales tax barrier at the main transport roads and all commercial vehicles are passing through such barriers. The commercial vehicles are required to file necessary declarations on such barriers as per the sales tax provisions of both the States. The Revenue investigated the matter with the Excise and Taxation Department of Himach ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rted goods under notification nos. 23/1998 Customs dated 2/6/1998, 21/1999 Customs dated 28/2/1999, 16/2000 Customs dated 31/03/2000 and 17/2001 Customs dated 1/3/2009 as concessional rate of duty is available with actual user /end use conditions. Therefore, the respondent is liable to pay differential duty of Rs. 1,34,31,105/- for the period 1/2/1999 to 31/03/2000. There is also an allegation against the respondent that during period 1st April, 2000 to 17th October, 2001, the appellant cleared the finished goods on the strength of parallel invoices. Therefore, they have evaded the payment of duty of Rs. 5,58,195/-. 4. On these allegations, the show cause notice was issued to the main respondent and for denial of CENVAT Credit demanding di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... liberately abating in passing illegal CENVAT Credit to the respondent. Consequently, the dealers are also liable to penalized. He also submits that Sales Tax Barriers records are having evidential value for denying CENVAT Credit. To support this contention relied on the decision of CCE Chandigarh Vs. Chemplast Industries reported in 2011 (266) ELT 71 (T), National Conduit Pipes Vs. CCE-Chandigarh , reported in 2010 (261) ELT 68 (T) which was confirmed the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court reported in 2012 (281) ELT 230, (P&H) and CCE Vs. International Cylinders Pvt. Ltd. Reported in 2010 (255) ELT 68 (HP). The vehicles carrying imported scrap have not moved in the State of Himachal Pradesh as per the gate pass of ICD and no cogent e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t's premises or not. Therefore, in the absence of any corroborative evidence, the ld. Commissioner has rightly dropped the charge against the respondent. 8. With regard to the imported scrap, it is the submission of the ld. Counsel that the imported scrap was required to be utilized by the appellant as they have availed the benefit of concessional rate of duty as per notification on the condition of end user. The Range Superintendent has given the certificate that imported scrap has been used by the respondent in manufacturing their final product and these evidence cannot be ignored. Therefore, the charge that the imported scrap has not reached to the respondent is not sustainable. 9. He further submits that in case of parallel invoic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... procured this scrap from Delhi. If the scrap is procured from Delhi to enter into Himachal Pradesh, the same has to pass through many State Barriers but Revenue has failed to prove that respondent has procured the scrap from Delhi with cogent evidence that same has passed through various barriers particularly from the Punjab Barrier of Sales Tax. Admittedly, no statement of transporters has been recorded to unearth the truth and the payment of all the scraps have been made by the respondent through account of payee cheques. In the absence of any cogent evidence against the respondent, the charge of availment of fraudulent CENVAT Credit on melting scrap on the invoices issued by the dealers of Mandi Govind Garh is not sustainable. As Revenue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the parallel invoices. During the course of the arguments this Bench also sought the source of procurement of these parallel invoices but Revenue has failed to produce the source of procurement of these parallel invoices, they produced only the photocopies and from where these photocopies has procured by Revenue has also not been proved by the Revenue. Merely, the statement that they have received these photocopies of invoices from Excise and Tax Department of Himachal Pradesh, in the absence of any documentary evidence, the parallel invoices are no acceptable documents, therefore, we hold that the duty cannot be demanded on this fake invoices produced by the Revenue. Therefore, demand of duty against the respondent on this account is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
