Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2015 (10) TMI 2449

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... dication order. In the present case, we find that the proprietor of M/s. Itisha Alu-Chem Industries had admitted that they have issued invoices to the appellant to facilitate for availment of CENVAT credit. It is clearly evident that the invoices were fake and therefore, the appellant is not eligible to avail credit on the fake invoices. - appellant is given option to pay penalty 25% of the duty alongwith entire amount of duty and interest within 30 days from the date of communication of the order - Decided partly in favour of assessee. - Appeal No. : E/573/2007 - ORDER No. A/11360/2015 - Dated:- 29-9-2015 - Mr. P.K. Das, Member (Judicial) And Mr. P.M. Saleem, Member (Technical) For the Petitioner : Shri Paritosh Gupta, Advocate .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... al Excise Act, 1944. The appellant paid the amount of ₹ 54,17,765/-, which was appropriated by the adjudicating authority. 2. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant fairly submits that they are contesting denial of CENVAT credit on the ground of limitation. It is submitted that there is no suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty and therefore, the demand of CENVAT credit by show cause notice dated 28.3.2006, for the period April 2001 to March 2005 cannot be sustained. He particularly drew attention of the Bench to the statement of Shri Gautam Pal, proprietor of the said firm to substantiate that they purchased material from the open market and delivered the same to the appellant under the cover .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y drew attention of the Bench to the said decision in respect of extended period of limitation. 4. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, we find force in the submission of learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue. It is noted that the present appellant M/s. Mansi Industries is also party in the case of M/s. Akik Dyechem Others (supra). The present proceeding is related with investigation in the case of M/s. Akik Dyechem Others (supra). In that case, the investigation taken up by the Revenue revealed that the premises registered for manufacture of Aluminium Ingots did not have any electricity connection, only one manually operated furnace which was also being operated by a different person during the per .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... as received in respect of the invoices on the basis of which credit was taken. Shri Goutam Pal clearly admitted that after deducting 10 to 15% of the duty amount availed as credit, the remaining amount was passed on the purchasers. Further, the buyers who paid duty under protest when the case was detected by the Department informed Shri Pal that such amount has been debited in his account of balance. However, before this Tribunal, a claim was made that duty paid under protest should be refunded to them even though it was not paid from their pocket. The evidence shown by the Revenue in the form of statement of Driver of GRU 4198, vehicles which were earth movers and owned by GSRTC show that the cenvat credit was taken only on the basis of do .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f invoices issued by M/s Itisha. It is also an admitted fact by both the Members that no duty was actually paid by M/s Itisha and no credit was available to such manufacturers/manufacturing units. On concurrence of such views with both the Members, it is accepted by both the Members that reversal of CENVAT Credit by the manufacturing unit in balance was not seriously challenged and was correctly upheld. It is to be noted that though the provisions of Rule 7 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 cannot be stretched too far, at the same time, it was the preliminary duty of the manufacturing unit to at least verify the fact of the manufacturing unit who has supplied the goods to them. Be that as it may, since it has been proved beyond doubt that the ma .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates