Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Gupta Steel Rolling Mills Versus CCE & ST, Ludhiana

2015 (10) TMI 624 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Fraudulent availment of CENVAT Credit - Bogus invoices - Issue of invoices without actual receipt of raw material - Held that:- 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 invoices in the godown and no sales invoices were issued for sale of such goods alongwith statement of Shri Happy Gupta, and other vehicle owners/drivers establish the case of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ppellant : 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 appellant, M/s Gupta Steel Rolling Mills, engaged in manufacture of goods falling under Chapter 72 of CETA, 1985, are registered with Central Excise Department and were als .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s in their approved godown. M/s HBR was unable to explain this, as there was no corresponding sale invoices for sale of the goods received on those 19 invoices, nor was there stock in the godown. On further investigation, it was found that the vehicle numbers mentioned in the invoices issued by M/s HBR Corporation against which they had passed Cenvat credit to appellants were of buses, motor cycles, scooter/moped etc. Accordingly show cause notice was issued proposing to disallow credit of ͅ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

efore 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

omply with this direction and the appeal was dismissed vide Order-in-Appeal dated 20.12.2010. The appellant then filed appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide order dated 10.10.2011 directed the appellant to deposit ₹ 1.5 lacs and report compliance to the Commissioner (Appeals) on or before 29.12.2011, and on such compliance the Commissioner (Appeals) was directed to decide the case on merits. The appellant made the pre-deposit as directed by Tribunal. Thereafter the Commissioner .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

contended that the statement of the consignor or any other person 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. Hea .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

deposed that they have never lifted any material from M/s HBR and they have not received any freight from them. Verification from Transporting authorities was also done which showed that vehicle registration numbers pertain to Scooters, Motorcycles, Luna Moped, Esteem Cars, Buses etc. The department after recording statements and conduct of investigation concluded that M/s HBR has issued modvatable invoices to the appellant and actually no goods were sold so as to pass the modvat credit in cont .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version