TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 206X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wed from C.E.A.No.36/2014. 3. This appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 35-G of Central Excise Act, 1944 against the final order dated 9/5/2014, passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal New Delhi, in Appeal No.E/541-543, 971-974/2006. 4. M/s. Bhanu Iron Steel Co. Ltd are manufacturers of M.S. Plates and M.S. Coils falling under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff. They were buying M.S. Slab from various parties and converting into M.S. Plates and M.S. Coils. They were also taking Cenvat credit of the duty paid on the slabs. They were buying M.S. Slab through their associate company at Hissar as well as other suppliers in Raipur, Bhilal, Guwahati and Hissar. On the basis of information that appellant fraudulently availed modvat credit of duty paid on inputs and capital goods on the strength of duty paying documents procured by them without actual receipt of inputs/capital goods on 26/8/1995 to 29/8/1995, the Central Excise Authorities, searched the premises of the appellant and noticed a shortage of 2620.800 MT of slabs. On further verification, stock of 76.62 of M.S. Plates (final product) valued at ₹ 11,89,650/- was found to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y Seven Lacs Fifty Two Thousand Five Hundred Seven Only) is disallowed and confirmed for recovery from the Noticee No.1- M/s Bhanu Iron Steel Co. Ltd. Plot No.801, Sector-III, Pithampur, in terms of Rule 57I(ii) and Rule 57U(2) of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. ii) I also impose penalty of ₹ 3,67,52,507.00/- (Rupees Three Crore Sixty Seven Lacs Fifty Two Thousand Five Hundred Seven Only) under rule 571(4) and 57U(6) of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 on the Noticee No.1-M/s. Bhanu Iron Steel Co. Ltd Plot No.801, Sector-III, Pithampur. iii) They are also liable to pay interest at appropriate rate under rules 57I (5) and 57U (8) of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 from the first day of the month succeeding to the month in which wrong credit was availed by noticee No.1 M/s- M/s Bhanu Iron Steel Co. Ltd. Plot No.801, Sector-III, Pithampur. iv) I also confiscate land, building plant and machinery of noticee No.1 but give an opinion to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of ₹ 25,00,000/- (Twenty Five Lacs only) within 3 months of receipt of this order under Rule 173Q(2) of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. v) I a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against the noticee under any other provision of law for the time being in force. 7. In an appeal, the learned tribunal by impugned order dated 9/5/2014 (Annexure A/1), dismissed the Excise appeals. Para 33 to 40 are relevant which reads as under :- 33. We have further examined the matter. From in depth and extensive investigation it has clearly emerged that :- (a) Shri Annop Bishnoi, M.D. Responsible for creating many Companies with the sole motive to avail illegal cenvat credit on the strength of paper transactions (b) On the basis of various verifications as referred in previous paragraphs, huge shortage 2620 MT of M.S. Slab was detected clearly indicating only paper transactions. Otherwise huge quantity of M/s. Slabs would not have been found short. (c) Investigation relating to M/s UAL, M/s Belveder Engg. Ltd., that these unit did not have any infrastructure to produce the goods thus indicating only paper transactions with the sole motive to pass on illegal cenvat credit. (d) Statement of Shri P.S. Bedi director of M/s. UAL that UAL was working on the directions of Shri Bishnoi even Shri Bishnoi was not officially on Board of the Company. He has no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsel. Actually fabrication of documents clearly point towards their attempt to enrich themselves at cost of Revenue. 37. From the findings of Divisional Bench of Hon'ble Tribunal Mumbai in the case of Viraj Alloys Ltd vs. CCE Thane II reported in 2004 (177) ELT 892 (Tri. - Mumbai) in para 11 and Divisional Bench of Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Ranjeev Alloys Limited vs. CCE Chandigarh 2009 (236) ELT 124 (Tri.- Delhi) at para 9 to para 26 as extracted in previous paragraphs it has ome out that entire transactions get vitiated by fraud coupled with confessional statements, mis-statements, fabrication or records, paper transactions with intent to pass on illegal cenvat credit. 38. It is observed that Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of M/s Alagappa Cement (P) Ltd Vs. CCE Chennai - 2010 (260) ELT 511 (Madras) and Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the case of CCE Vs. International Cylinder Pvt. Ltd - 2010 (255) ELT 68 (H.P.) has come up with the findings that there could be no unjust enrichment at the cost of revenue. 39. From the above, a clear fraud with intention to fabricate documents with the sole motive to illegally avail and pass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied upon documents. 25. All the Noticees were requested to inspect/take photocopies of documents again vide letter 25.12.97, and they were requested to file reply vide letter dated 5.5.98. Yet again, further opportunities to Noticees vide letters dated 4.6.96, 5.6.98, 17.6.98, 19.11.98, 8.12.98, 3.3.99, were provided to the Noticees for filing the reply. Inspite of these repeated requests and best efforts, reply to SCN was not filed by the Noticees, execpt by the Noticee Nos. 11, 14, 15, 18, 21 22. 26. Noticees were again given opportunity to defend their case during personal hearing fixed for 12.3.99. Shri Ashutosh Upadhyay, Advocate appeared and sought some more time for filing reply. Personal Hearing has again been fixed for 7.4.99, but nobody appeared on that date on behalf of Noticees. 27. The Noticee No.1 vide their letter dated 18.3.99 requested for release of nonrelied upon documents. However, based on an acknowledgment by Shri B. K. Joshi, Authorized signatory, way back on 24.9.98 my predecessor took the stand that the Noticee is unnecessarily trying to prolong the case without sufficient reasons and, therefore, proceeded and adjudicated the case. However, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of some documents. First of all, it is observed that the documents in question are just nonrelied upon documents and the show cause notice is not at all relied upon them. All the relied upon documents on the basis of which the case was built upon, were provided to them way back in 1997. At that time, the Noticee was only asking for the relied upon documents and on receipt of the same, they wanted to adjourn the case proceedings on the pretext of non-receipt of non relied upon documents. After much efforts, these nonrelied upon documents though not much relevant to the case were located from the old records and were offered to them. Instead of receiving, the same, the Noticee is not cooperating with the Department on flimsy grounds. This is evident from the fact that at the time of receipt of files on 23.3.2005, the Noticee never disputed regarding the contents whereas on 24.3.2005, they have submitted a letter disputing the contents of the files. This is clearly an after thought and had the contents were different, they should have verified at the time of receipt itself and refused taking possession thereof. This is not the case, and in the case of computer floppies as well as the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
