TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2403X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellants or to the port of export. Investigations revealed that the goods were lifted from some dealers in Surat, etc. Further, investigations indicate that some payments were made to Muni Group of Companies through account payee cheques. However, immediately, thereafter, Muni Group of Companies have issued cheques in the name of some other entities. These cheques were, in turn got discounted by the merchant exporter/appellants. In some cases, the amounts were paid by crossed bearer cheques to Muni Group of Companies. However, these cheques were, in reality, not deposited in the accounts of Muni Group of Companies, but were deposited either in the name of certain dealers or got discounted from various bill discounters/shroffs. In nutshell, the money which was purported to have been paid to Muni Group of Companies for purchase of material was not paid to them but either was taken back by the appellants-merchant exporters, or in some cases, some amount was paid to certain dealers in fabric. Invoices of Muni Group of Companies and the goods purported to be covered by such invoices were dealt by the merchant exporter-appellants. There can be no doubt, that these goods are liable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... utilise it for payment of duty liability. The penalty imposed on various appellants are as under: S. No. Appellants Penalty (Rs. ) 1. Shri Babul Jain, Partner of Rainbow Silks, 2,00,000/- 2. Shri Prem Rautramni Joshi, Monika Impex 25,00,000/- 3. Shri Yudhishtir Kumar Batra, Partner/Proprietor of Vikram International Dipika Overseas 2,00,00,000/- 4. Shri Atma Prakash Batra, of Guria Textiles 25,00,000/- 5. Shri Prakash Poddar Authorised Signatory of Karishma Overseas Sheetal Exports 75,00,000/- 6. Shri Rajesh Rameshwar Dayal Bansal, Partner of R.J.Fashions 25,00,000/- 7. Shri Manohar Mali, Proprietor of Shree Ganesh Enterprises 2,00,000/- 8. Shri Ayush Murarilal Agarwal, Proprietor of Namaste Exports, Authorised Signatory of Pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nvoices issued by Muni Group for payment of their duty liability and perhaps ultimately get those encashed as rebate. Few appellants have other role which will be discussed while considering individual appeals. 3. From the investigation, it is clear that certain banking transactions had taken place which proved that whenever any bearer cheque were issued for purchase of goods against the ARE-1s or invoices by the merchant exporter/Rule 12B manufacturers, the cheques were discounted and cash payments against the cheque were made back to the merchant exporters/Rule 12B manufacturers subject to payment of certain commission to the middleman and to the cheque discounting man. Investigation also revealed that as and when account payee cheques were issued by the merchant exporters/Rule 12B manufacturers these cheques were deposited in different accounts of Muni Group of Companies and equal amount of bearer cheques were issued to the merchant exporters/Rule 12B manufacturers from these accounts. In some cases, some payments have been shown to be made in the account to the local supplier of Surat against supply of fabric/textile item, etc. which have been exported against ARE-1s/Rule 12 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manufactured by Muni Group of Companies but procured from the open market. It was submitted that Commissioner has imposed penalty under Rule 26 on the ground that the merchant exporter have dealt with the export goods which were not manufactured by Muni Group of Companies but procured from the market and which export goods were liable to confiscation. It was submitted that the Commissioner has not indicated as to who and under which provisions of law, the goods allegedly procured from the local market and exported are liable to confiscation. 5.2. In respect of appellant No. 4 and 6, it was submitted that they are Rule 12B manufacturer and they have purchased grey fabrics from Muni Group of Companies and availed CENVAT credit of the duty paid by Muni Group of Companies. Such goods were processed by job-workers who pay duty on the processed fabrics by availing CENVAT credit of duty paid by Muni Group of Companies as well as through PLA on account of value addition. It was submitted that the processed fabrics were then exported under claim for rebate. It was submitted that no rebate has been received by them in respect of 12B manufacturers. Also penalties imposed under Rule 26 on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e procured and exported by the appellants cannot by itself establish that the goods were liable to confiscation and appellant knew or had reason to believe that the said goods are liable to confiscation. It was further submitted that under Central Excise Rules, provision for liability to confiscation of excisable goods are contained in Rule 25 and as far as the appellants, it is the Revenues case that the goods exported were not manufactured by Muni Group of Companies but were procured from the open market and since the goods were procured from the open market, the appellant has no knowledge that the goods are liable to confiscation. There is no evidence that the goods procured from the local market are liable to confiscation. It was further submitted that the goods procured from the open market are to be taken as duty paid unless shown otherwise. In support of the said contention, following case laws are quoted: (i) Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Decent Dyeing Co. 1990 (45) ELT 201 (SC); (ii) Nagpur Re-Rolling Mills vs. Commissioner of Central Excise 2001 (136) ELT 423. 5.5. It was submitted that the Commissioner has not indicated as to how and under which provis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... apacity as proprietor of Namaste Exports, authorised signatory and brother of Shri Anuj Murarilal Agarwal, proprietor of M/s. Prime Exports and authorised signatory and son of Shri Murarilal Agarwal, proprietor of Daffodil Exports. It was submitted that the appellant is neither authorised signatory of Prime Exports or Daffodil Exports. Further the appellant has been penalised in his capacity as merchant exporter for purported contraventions by all the three firms on the basis of his statement that he looked after the affairs of the three firms. It was also submitted that a penalty has been imposed only on the basis that the appellant could not explain as to how detailed packing lists could be prepared without opening the packages, failure on the part of the appellant to give name and address of the representative of the Muni Group of Companies who approached the three firms and on the basis that the actual beneficiary of certain cheques issued to M/s. Muni Group of Companies by the three firms were firms like M/s. Eagle Textile, Metro Industries etc. indicating that they were actual suppliers and not Muni Group of Companies. The learned counsel submitted that the rebate claims pref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refore, penalty cannot be imposed. It was also submitted that a similar case was adjudicated by the Commissioner, Mumbai I vide order No. 01/M-I/2009/155 dated 03/02/2009 wherein no penalty was imposed under Rule 26 by the Commissioner and the said order has been accepted by the department. It was also submitted that the said order was quoted before the adjudicating authority, however, the present adjudicating authority has simply ignored the said order. It was also submitted that the Commissioner has given the findings in para 91 that the exporters were not required to follow any of the provisions of Central Excise law and the so-called 12B manufacturer were also not alleged for contravention of any of the provisions of Central Excise law or the rules made thereunder. It was also submitted that as per the decision of the honble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Balaji Trading Co. 2013 (290) ELT 200 the provisions of Rule 25 would be attracted only against the four category of persons mentioned therein and thus the said rule cannot be made applicable in the case of present appellant and hence since the goods cannot be confiscated penalty under Rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) of the impugned order. It was also submitted that if any inference is drawn by finding of the adjudicating authority that they have only supplied duty paid invoices to Muni Group and not actually supplied goods then also they are not liable to penalty under Rule 26 before 01/03/2007 as sub-rule (2) to Rule 26 came into force w.e.f. 01/03/2007. It was submitted that in view of the above position penalty under Rule 26 may be set aside. 5.10. learned counsel for appellant No. 11 submitted that the present proceedings are in the nature of double jeopardy as penalty of ₹ 1 lakh under Rule 26 has been imposed with respect to the credit amounting to approximately ₹ 3.5 lakhs availed by them on the basis of invoice No. 728 dated 04/02/2004 and 729 dated 05/02/2004 issued by M/s. Apex Corporation. The said investigation are also already subject matter dispute in another show cause notice F. No. V-Adj(52,54,63)/CSCN/M-I/15-16/2008 dated 09/07/2008. The said show cause notice was adjudicated and penalty on the present appellant was imposed under Rule 26. It was submitted that a person cannot be penalized twice for the same offence. It was submitted that the appellant is a cus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nfirmed from the bank account that the payment made by them to M/s Muni Group through Account Payee cheques and the same amount was paid back to different local suppliers of Surat. It was also submitted that appellant has paid back the rebate claim availed by them thereby accepting the charges. 6.2. In respect of appellant No.2, it is submitted that appellant No.2 is also a merchant exporter and used the ARE-Is of Muni Group for claiming rebate claim. Learned AR took us through para XXVI of page 51 and para XXVII of page 52 of the impugned order. 6.3. In respect of appellant No. 3, it was submitted that, Vikram Industries and Deepika Overseas are merchant exporters and they obtained ARE-Is from the Muni Group of companies without getting any goods, purchased locally non duty paid goods. Export rebate was claimed against the ARE-Is of Muni Group. It was submitted that the details from the banks and enquires with agents doing cheque discounting confirmed that whatever payment was made to Muni Group of companies, same was received back by these two companies in cash. Statement of transporters proves that goods did not move from Muni Group of Companies but somewhere else. 6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitted that they have also taken ARE-Is from Muni Group and claimed rebate against export. Learned AR also referred to para e, f, g, h, l of page 94 and 9, para ii on page 121, para xv on page 175. 6.10. In respect of appellant No.10, it was submitted that exporters viz: M/s Karishma, M/s Deepika and Rainbow Silk have confirmed that ARE-Is of Muni Group were supplied to them by the appellant and the appellant was proprietor of M/s Shubh Laxmi Fabrics. During investigation, appellant he stated that one Shri Shyam Sunder Sharma was looking after the work of his firm and he was arranging deals between the Muni Group of Companies and Merchant Exporters. It was further submitted that the appellant was also found to be proprietor of M/s K.V. Corporation and was getting the cheques discounted and collecting the cash back. His role as discussed in Para V and para (a) on page 56, para VII (a), (b) on page 57 and 58, para 5 on pg. 92, para 8 on pg 128 of the impugned order, was explained in detail. 6.11. As far as appellant No.11 is concerned, appellant is a merchant exporter and has claimed rebate against the ARE-Is of Muni Group without actually receiving any goods. The Commission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vs. CCE, Thane I; (viii) Order No. A/1950-1967/15/15/EB dated 11/03/2015, Bhagwati Steel Cast Ltd. vs. CCE, Nashik. 7. We have gone through the impugned order as also the submissions made by the counsels of various appellants as also the AR. 8. One of the common contentions by various learned counsels for the appellants was that penalty under Rule 26 cannot be imposed on the appellants, many of them are merchant exporters or Rule 12B manufacturers. It was the contention of the learned counsels that as per the departments case Muni Group of Companies have only supplied duty-paying invoices and the goods have come from some other sources and these goods along with the invoices of the Muni Group of Companies were exported and rebate was claimed. It was the contention of the learned counsels that Commissioner has not indicated as to how and under which provisions of law the goods allegedly procured from the market and exported are liable to confiscation. 8.1. We have given considerable thought to the submission. We reproduce Rule 25 and 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 as under: RULE 25. Confiscation and penalty . (1) Subject to the provisions of section 11AC of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ched Muni Group of Companies and purchased certain invoices from them so as to fraudulently show as if the goods were purchased from Muni Group of Companies on the invoices of Muni Group and thereafter exported or used in processing. Thus, there are excisable goods which are purported to be cleared on the invoice of Muni Group. In all cases, the investigations have indicated that the goods were never transported from Muni Group of Companies to the appellants or to the port of export. Investigations revealed that the goods were lifted from some dealers in Surat, etc. Further, investigations indicate that some payments were made to Muni Group of Companies through account payee cheques. However, immediately, thereafter, Muni Group of Companies have issued cheques in the name of some other entities. These cheques were, in turn got discounted by the merchant exporter/appellants. In some cases, the amounts were paid by crossed bearer cheques to Muni Group of Companies. However, these cheques were, in reality, not deposited in the accounts of Muni Group of Companies, but were deposited either in the name of certain dealers or got discounted from various bill discounters/shroffs. In nutshe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hequer, in the name of rebate even though in reality, no duty was paid in the scheme of the above fraud, it was fraudulently shown that the duty was paid and the appellants or Muni of Group of Companies would be able to get refund of the duty in the form of rebate which thereafter will be distributed among themselves. 8.5. The reasoning adopted by the honble Gujarat High Court in the case of Sanjay Vimalbhai Deora (supra) which in turn has been upheld by the honble Supreme Court is equally applicable. Similarly, the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Veekay Enterprises and M S Metals (supra) are equally applicable. 8.6. The learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted certain judgments wherein honble Supreme Court and other courts have held that the goods purchased from the market are deemed to be duty-paid. We have gone through the said judgments. We find the facts in the present case are very different. In fact, if the goods were duty paid, there was no reason for the appellants to approach Muni Group of Companies and procure the fraudulent invoices. In that situation, the appellants could have got the invoices from the seller of the goo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we do not agree with such an understanding. Such an interpretation of law will make minor violators of the procedure as liable to penalty under Rule 26 while the outright law violators or fraudsters will go scot free. We therefore take no cognizance of the order passed by the Commissioner and the fact that such order has been accepted by the department is of no consequence. 8.9. As the facts and role of each appellant are varying, role of each appellants and findings of this Tribunals on these facts are as under: 9. Appeal No. E/723/2010 : The appellant in the present case is a merchant exporter. From the investigation statements made by Shri Babul Jain, partner of Rainbow Silks and other details as discussed in the impugned order, it appears that the appellant is an established exporter of textiles for the last so many years and they procured certain textile material i.e., printed polyester fabric through one broker, Shri Ajay Mittal who supplied them the said goods vide Central Excise invoice No. 73, dated 20/04/2014, invoice No. 99 dated 25/04/2004 and 108 dated 15/05/2004 and the corresponding ARE-1s. These ARE-1s are of M/s. Globe Traders, Bhiwandi, a Muni Group of Comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant has been totally non-cooperative and misleading. Large numbers of documents were shown to him and these documents were recovered from different set of person which includes transporter, CHA, warehousing agent in port, etc. In these documents, name and phone numbers of the appellant was mentioned. When the appellant was confronted with these documents he did not gave any reply or any satisfactory explanation but tried to disown everything. It was also found that a number of cheques which were issued to Muni Group of Companies bear his name on backside as identification marked by the person to whom cash or discounting was given. Faced with such details, no proper explanation was given by the present appellant. From large number of documents it is very clear that the appellant exported the goods manufactured from the unit located in Adarsh Chemical Factory but he showed invoices and ARE1s of Muni Group of Companies to claim the rebate. 10.1. Learned counsel for the appellants main submission is that the appellant has not received the show cause notice which was issued to the appellant at his residential address and hence the order-in-original was passed in gross violation o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in question are confiscable and hence penalty under Rule 26 is correctly imposed. Keeping in mind the amount of rebate claim involved, we find that the penalty imposed on the appellant is not on the higher side and we dismiss the appeal filed by the appellant. 11. Appeal No: E/674/2010 : Mr. Yudhishtir Kumar Batra, is Partner/Proprietor of Vikram International Dipika Overseas, Surat. They have exported goods and acted as merchant exporter. The goods were exported on the basis of duty paying invoices issued by Muni Group of Companies and the investigations have revealed that no goods were manufactured by Muni Group of Companies but Mr. Yudhishtir Kumar Batra procured the goods from certain sources in Surat and such goods were purported to have been manufactured by Muni Group of Companies and thereafter exported. The details of investigation are indicated in para 50, 53, 53.1 to 53.14, which relates to financial flow/flow back and 54.4 relating to transport as also (xv) which indicates the conduct of the appellant during investigation and (xvi), (xvii) which are again relating to financial transaction. From the investigation it is clear that no goods were transported from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent. The pleas is therefore rejected. 12. Appeal No. E/675/2010 : Shri Atma Prakash Batra was acting on behalf of M/s. Guria Textiles, M/s. Batra Overseas and M/s. Batra International. During investigation Shri Atma Prakash Batra did not cooperate and avoided investigation on some or other pretext. In their case, the investigation was done based upon the records received from Surat I Commissionerate. The allegation in the show cause notice is that they have claimed inadmissible CENVAT credit on the basis of invoices of Muni Group of Companies without actually receiving any goods. Thereafter they have used the said CENVAT credit in the clearance of the processed fabrics. These facts have not been denied by the appellant before this Tribunal. Learned counsel for the appellant have also not made any submission about the findings of the Commissioner or about anything stated in the order-in-original. The only submission made by him is that the Commissioner has not indicated as to how and under which provisions of law the goods allegedly procured from the market and exported after processing are liable to confiscation. We have already discussed in para 8 to 8.6 how the goods in such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his we do not find any force in the argument of the appellant. We also note that the penalty imposed is not on the higher side keeping in view the rebate amount involved in the transactions carried out by the appellant. In view of the said position the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed. 14. Appeal No. E/677/2010 : Shri Rajesh Rameshwar Dayal Bansal, partner of R.J. Fashions, the appellant is a Rule 12B manufacturer i.e., they purported to have received certain grey fabrics from Muni Group of Companies and availed credit on the basis of the said invoices issued by Muni Group of Industries. The grey fabrics were purchased from somewhere else and got processed and fraudulent CENVAT credit was utilised for payment of duty on processed fabric. In fact in the statement, Shri Rameshwar Bansal has admitted that he has received the invoices in his firms name but were endorsed to different mills from where he used to receive the processed fabrics and on such invoices he took credit of about ₹ 1 crore on the basis of such invoices. During investigation he could not give the details of mills from where the goods were processed. Investigation also revealed that the payments ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prietor and his name was used for discounting of cheques. We do not find any force in the contention. There is no concept in law for namesake proprietor. Appellant was the proprietor of Shri Ganesh Enterprises wherein undisputedly credit was availed without receiving the goods from M/s. Venkatesh Mercantile. Penalty under Rule 26 has been correctly imposed. Penalty imposed is only ₹ 2 lakhs which is not on the higher side, keeping in view the amount of credit involved. We dismiss the appeal filed by Shri Manohar Mali. 16. Appeal No: E/702/2010 : Shri Ayush Murarilal Agarwal is the proprietor of Namaste Exports was also managing two more firms i.e. Daffodils Exports owned by appellants father Shri Murarilal Agarwal and Prime Exports owned by his brother Shri Manoj Murarilal Agarwal. All the three firms were operating from the same premises and all the three firms were being looked after by the appellant Shri Ayush Murarilal Agarwal. It is seen from the investigation that all the three firms were working as merchant exporters and were also Rule 12B manufacturers. In the present case, during investigation, appellant was not even able to give name and address of the represen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty. It was also submitted that Rule 26 cannot be invoked on Merchant Exporter. 16.2. It was also submitted that there is no doubt that the goods have been exported and were presented to the Customs authorities. Even if it is presumed that the goods have been purchased from the open market, as held by the honble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Decent Dyeing Co. 1990 (45) ELT 201 (SC) the supplied goods has to be considered as duty-paid and cannot be confiscated. Similar view has been taken other courts. It was also submitted that it cannot be said that the appellant had the knowledge that the goods which have been exported are liable to confiscation. In view of this position, no penalty can be imposed. 16.3. Learned counsel submitted that vide order No. 01/M/2009/ST dated 03/02/2009 Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai I in an identical situation has dropped penalty under Rule 26 and the said case was submitted before the adjudicating authority and the adjudicating authority has given no comments on the said order. Further, the department has not challenged the said order and therefore, has achieved finality. 16.4. It was also submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty amount as rebate of duty is a different matter. The goods exported are dutiable and duty is involved on the same. In our view, penalty up to an amount equal to the duty would be applicable. 16.7. We also note that penalty is imposed under Rule 26 and not 25, thus four categories of persons is irrelevant. Penalty under Rule 26 is applicable to any person. We have already held in para 8 to 8.6, that goods will be confiscable under Rule 25(1)(d). 16.8. Order dated 03/02/2009 passed by Commissioner, Mumbai - I which is said to be accepted by the department is not based upon the correct appreciation of law and is neither binding on this Tribunal or other Court or other Commissioner. 16.9. Learned counsels argument that goods purchased from market are also duty paid goods, the order of the Honble Apex Court is in different facts and circumstances. In the present case, if these were duty paid rebate should be claimed based upon the duty paying documents and not based upon fraudulent documents. 16.10. We therefore do not find any merits in the appeal and is therefore dismissed. Penalty imposed is also not on the higher side. 17. Appeal No: E/733/2010 : Shri Ajit Sing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion, the purported goods supplied by the appellant are liable to confiscation under Rule 25 and penalty Rule 26 is correctly imposed. Penalty imposed is also not on the higher side. Appeal filed is therefore dismissed. 18. Appeal No. E/738/2010 : In this case the appellant is Shri Ajay Rameshchandra Mittal who is the proprietor of Shubhlaxmi and Sejal Overseas and he was also found to be proprietor of K.V. Corporation. It was found during investigation that, exporters basically M/s Karishma, M/s Deepika and Rainbow Silk have confirmed that ARE-Is of Muni Group were supplied to them by Shri Ajay Mittal. From the investigation it is clear that Shri Ajay Mittal was approaching arranging different persons for selling of invoices of Muni Group of Companies and in some cases even goods were procured from some other sources but with the invoices of Muni Group of Companies. Further, it appears that, fictitious transport documents were also provided by Shri Ajay Mittal to some of the buyers. Further, in the financial transaction he seems to have major role inasmuch as the money was withdrawn and then handed over. Role Shri Ajay Mittal is discussed in para (v)(a) of page 56 of the impu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Corporation. In his statement Shri Doshi has submitted that they have availed CENVAT credit on two invoices issued by M/s. Apex Corporation and he produced the copies of the ledger accounts, invoices, bank statements in Cosmos Bank and ER1 returns filed by them for the relevant month. It was also submitted by him that the transactions was done through one Shri Amit Agarwal, a broker who had approached their Surat office and had arranged to supply the goods and invoices at their Mumbai premises and he did not know details about transporter, Apex Corporation or Shri K.K. Gupta. It was also found during investigation that the payments made by him to Apex Corporation was in reality discounted at Surat and the name of discounting party was Shri Ashish, his employee and phone number was also of Doshi Impex. His employee Shri Ashish later on accepted that he got the cheque discounted as per the instruction of Shri Naresh Doshi. The investigation details in para 63.2 very clearly indicates the involvement of Doshi Impex even though in the statement Shri Naresh Doshi tried to deny. 19.2. Keeping in view the over all facts of the case, it is clear that the appellant knowingly involved in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has purchased the goods through Shri Tejas Desai. He has never visited the premises of M/s. Venkatesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. and the goods were received by him at these premises. He is not in a position to state that the goods were actually arrived from Muni Group of Companies, Bhiwandi and he has also submitted that he has paid for the goods after receiving the same and he has exported the goods. Thereafter, arranged for transport of the goods through Lalji Mulji Transport and thereafter exported through the above said CHA. 21.1. It was also found during investigation that the DRI had also recorded the statements of Shri Parmeshwar Pareek which are detailed on page 41 of the impugned order wherein Shri Parmeshwar Pareek described the modus operandi and admitted that they have exported cheaper quality of goods under the cover of documents obtained from M/s. Venkatesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. to avail higher rate of rebate and DEPB. Further investigation were taken up through the banking channels, and reasons are detailed at para 58.1(ii) of page 40, para a, b, c, on page 41, para 11, 11(a) of page 72 of the impugned order, the details as to how the cheques were presented and who were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proprietor of M/s. Riddhi Siddhi International, M/s. Shree Laxmi Impex and M/s. Surya Exports. Investigations have revealed that the appellant have received the invoices from Muni Group of Companies without receiving any goods and he has availed CENVAT credit on the basis of such invoices. Payments were made to Muni Group of Companies through account payee cheques and after cheque discounting got the cash back. The details of the investigation are in para VII on page 57, (a), (b), (c), para VIII on page 57 and 58,para 6 on page 93, para 8 on page 128, para (g), (h) on page 129, para 50 on page 152, para XV on page 176. We have gone through the earlier mentioned investigation. Conduct of appellant during investigation speaks of itself. We do not find any genuine or proper explanation on various discrepancies found during the investigation. It also appears that the appellant was working in close coordination with Shri Ajay Mittal who was one of the main seller of the invoices of Muni Group of Companies in the above fraud. During investigation, the appellant was not able to explain anything about the transportation and storage of the goods and how such goods transportation has taken p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7. E/682/2010 Shri Manohar Mali Appeal dismissed 8. E/702/2010 Shri Ayush Murarilal Agarwal Appeal dismissed 9. E/733/2010 Shri Ajit Singh B Choraria Appeal dismissed 10. E/738/2010 Shri Ajay Rameshchandra Mittal Appeal dismissed 11. E/782/2010 Shri Naresh J. Doshi Appeal dismissed 12. E/797/2010 Shri Farooq Razazk Gazi Appeal allowed 13. E/879/2010 Shri Parameshwar Arjun Pareek Appeal dismissed 14. E/910/2010 Shri Sumit H. Juneja Appeal dismissed 15. E/929/2010 Shri Shyam Sunder A. Sharma Appeal dismissed 16. E/1621/2010 Shri Ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
