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 →

M/s Clutch Auto Ltd, Shri VK Mehta, Vice Chairman, Shri Suresh Garg, Finance Manager, Shri KP Chitrasenan, Excise Assistant Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Faridabad

2015 (10) TMI 1029 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Duty evasion - CENVAT Credit - Bogus invoices - Parallel invoices - Held that:- Duty demand against the appellant is based on the allegation that in respect of 1467 consignments of automobile parts had been sold to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and 409 consignments of automobile parts sold to non OEM customers, in respect of each such sale, the appellant have issued two invoices bearing the same number and same description of the goods but the date of invoices and duty debit particular .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

05,53,961/- has to be upheld.

Initially the goods had been cleared on payment of duty and on being found defective the same were returned by the customers for repair/reconditioning, and no credit of duty paid on the goods was taken by the appellant, in our view, while returning the goods after repair, no duty is required to be paid. Therefore, in these circumstances, even if the appellant cleared the defective goods under cenvatable invoices by showing duty payment particular which we .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

fferent from the duty payment shown in the same invoice number which were available in the records of the central excise authority. Since there is no explanation regarding this discrepancy, we are of the view the duty demand of ₹ 73,821/- has to be upheld.

As the provisions of section 11AB had been introduced in Central Excise Act with effect from 28.9.96, the interest would be chargeable in respect of clearance during the period from 28.9.96 to November, 1996, No interest on du .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

is set aside. However, as regards imposition of penalty on Shri V.K.Mehta, Managing Director under Rule 209 is upheld. - Decided partly in favour of assessee. - Appeal Nos. E/3892-3895/2004-EX - Final Order Nos. A/51556-51559/2015-EX(DB) - Dated:- 10-4-2015 - Rakesh Kumar, Member (T) And S K Mohanty, Member (J),JJ. For the Appellant : None For the Respondent : Shri Ranjan Khanna, AR ORDER Per: Rakesh Kumar: The facts leading to filling of these appeals are, in brief, as under:- 1.1 M/s Clutch A .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ises, a number of invoices were found which appeared to be parallel invoices. The investigating officer studied the documents taken over by them and made enquiry with the Managing director and employees of the company. There are four allegations against the appellant company involving duty evasion:- (1) On study of the invoices, it was found that, during the period of dispute, the appellant supplied automobile components to the various automobile manufacturers (OEMs) and also to traders (non OEM .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

as found to be containing bogus duty payment details and on the basis of that invoice, the customers had taken credit. Similarly, during the same period, total 409 sales were made to non OEM customers. In respect of each sale, two invoices of the same number were issued on different dates, the invoice on the earlier date was containing bogus duty payment details. The investigating officers were of the view that the goods covered second invoice had been illicitly removed without payment of duty, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed cenvatable invoices showing payment of duty through cenvat credit account but debit entry was found to be bogus and as such no duty had been paid either through cenvat credit account or through PLA. The appellant while receiving defective goods, had not taken credit of the duty paid on the goods and therefore, under Rule 173H should have returned the goods without payment of duty under challan etc. but instead, they returned the goods under parallel invoice showing payment of duty while no su .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

persons. The duty demand of ₹ 70,128/- (4) The duty demand of ₹ 73,821/- is in respect of certain loose pre-authenticated invoices duly signed by the representative of the assessee and duly incorporating date and time of removal with PLA debit entry number and date. However, debit entry shown in the loose copies of invoices were found to be different from the duty payment shown in the same invoice number which were-in the record of central excise department. 1.3 The above matter was .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nst this order of the Commissioner, these appeals have been filed. 2. None appeared for the appellant, though the notice for hearing had been sent to them well in time. It is seen that on earlier occasion also none represented the appellant. There is letter dated 23.1.2015 of Shri Laximkumaran, Advocate addressed to the Registrar stating that while they were representing the appellant in the case but due to unavoidable circumstances, they are withdrawing from this matter and they have also infor .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

memo of appeal and written submissions submitted earlier by the appellant. 5. The main duty demand of ₹ 2,05,53,961/- against the appellant is based on the allegation that in respect of 1467 consignments of automobile parts had been sold to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and 409 consignments of automobile parts sold to non OEM customers, in respect of each such sale, the appellant have issued two invoices bearing the same number and same description of the goods but the date of i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n respect of 1318 consignments only one invoice has been issued and there was no such irregularity. In view of this, we hold that the impugned order confirming the duty demand of ₹ 2,05,53,961/- has to be upheld. 6. As regards, the duty demand of ₹ 1,75,951/- in respect of defective goods returned by the customers cleared after repair/reconditioning, there is no dispute that initially the goods had been cleared on payment of duty but subsequently the same were found to be defective, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ially the goods had been cleared on payment of duty and on being found defective the same were returned by the customers for repair/reconditioning, and no credit of duty paid on the goods was taken by the appellant, in our view, while returning the goods after repair, no duty is required to be paid. Therefore, in these circumstances, even if the appellant cleared the defective goods under cenvatable invoices by showing duty payment particular which were found to bogus, no duty was demandable fro .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

in our view, the duty of ₹ 70,128/- is not justified and the same is set aside. 8. As regards the duty demand of ₹ 73,821/- it is in respect of certain loose pre-authenticated invoices duly signed by the representative of the assessee and duly incorporating date and time of removal with PLA debit entry number and date. However, debit entry shown in the loose copies of invoices were found to be different from the duty payment shown in the same invoice number which were available in th .....

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