TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 624X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ven after getting ample opportunity. These contentions in defence are raised only at appellate stage. There is actually no defence raised at the primary adjudication level. - No infirmity in the impugned order - Decided against assessee. - Appeal No. E/55669/2014-EX(SM) - Final Order No. 52939/2015 - Dated:- 22-9-2015 - Hon ble Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member ( Judicial ) For the Appellant : Shri Poojan Malhotra, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri M.R. Sharma, DR ORDER Per Sulekha Beevi C.S. 1. The allegation raised is that appellant availed Modvat/Cenvat credit amounting to ₹ 6,27,387/- on the basis of fictitious invoices without actually receiving any goods. 2. Brief facts are as under: 2.1 The appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Appeals) allowed the appeal observing that the there is violation of principles of natural justice. 3. Against the said Order-in-Appeal, the Revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide Final Order No. 88/2009 dated 09.1.2009 remanded the case for de novo adjudication. Thereafter the case was re-adjudicated and Order-in-Original dated 31.3.2010 was passed confirming the demand. It is observed in that order that the appellant here in, has again neither filed reply nor appeared for the personal hearing. In Para 2 of the said order the adjudicating authority has observed as below: Reply of the Notice 2.1 No reply was received from the Noticee even after more than one year since the receipt of the said remand order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was not taken by the department. That the whole case of the department is based on assumptions and presumptions. The order is passed on the statement of Happy Gupta and that no person from the appellants firm was examined. That the respondents have failed to establish the allegation raised in the Show Cause Notice. Per Contra, the Revenue supported the impugned order, and submitted that the credit has been rightly denied. 7. Heard both sides. The appellant is alleged to have fraudulently availed Cenvat credit on the basis of invoices issued by M/s HBR Steel Corporation without actual receipt of raw materials mentioned therein. On investigation it was found that the vehicle numbers mentioned in the invoices issued by M/s HBR were fou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n in 19 invoices. He explains that the goods were kept for a short period in a godown belonging to his friend. That due to some family dispute regarding partnership of their sister concern namely M/s Gupta Steel Rolling Mills, Ludhiana (appellant herein) and illness of his father, they were forced to shift the excisable goods from the approved godown. These statements reveal that appellant was a sister concern of M/s HBR Steel Corporation. I do not find any irregularity or illegality in relying upon the statement made by Shri Happy Gupta. The department has been able to safely establish fraudulent activities of appellant. The recovery of 19 invoices together with the discovery of the fact that there were no goods corresponding to such invoi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
