New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (10) TMI 2449 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

2015 (10) TMI 2449 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD - TMI - Fraudulent Availment of CENVAT Credit - Bogus invoices - Held that:- Appellant M/s. Mansi Industries is also party in the case of M/s. Akik Dyechem & Others (2013 (9) TMI 415 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD). 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 electri .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nvoices. - 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 For the Respondent : Shri Sameer Chitkara, Authorised Representative ORDER Per : Mr. P.K. Da .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

mitted that he had fraudulently issued the invoices to facilitate the CENVAT credit to the other manufacturers. Thereafter, the Central Excise officers visited the appellants factory on 08.4.2005, who is engaged in the manufacture of Anhydrous Aluminium Chloride classifiable under heading 28.27 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, and availed cenvat credit on the basis of invoices issued by the said Firm. After verification of records, documents and the search operation of 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

icating 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

le steps as per Rule 7, Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001/2002/ 2004. He submits that the issue is squarely covered by the following decisions:- (a) M/s. Bhagwati Silk Mills - Order No. A/55-185/WZB/AHD/ 2011 dated 23.11.2010 /24.01.2011. (b) Prayagraj Dyeing & Printing Mills Pvt. Limited vs. UOI 2013 (290) ELT 61 (Guj.) (c) CCE & Cus. vs. D.P. Singh 2011 (270) ELT 321 (Guj.) (d) Minakshi Fashion Pvt. Limited vs. CCE & Cus., Surat 2015 (322) ELT 174 (Guj.) 3. On the other hand, .....

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 respect of imposition of penalty. The Hon'ble third Member held that imposition of penalty is warranted. He particularly 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) .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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. 5. The learned Advocate strongly relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Prayagraj Dyeing & Printing Mills Pvt. Otd (supra). In that case, the invoices issued by the dealers were a v .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

icable in the present case. The Tribunal in respect of extended period of limitation observed as under:- 12. As regards invocation of extended period, it is quite clear that none of the appellants had taken steps as contemplated under Rule 7 and availed credit without ensuring that duty was paid on the material purchased by them and did not even ensure that all the raw material was received in respect of the invoices on the basis of which credit was taken. Shri Goutam Pal clearly admitted that 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

river of GRU 4198, vehicles which were earth movers and owned by GSRTC show that the cenvat credit was taken only on the basis of documents fraudulently and knowingly. Clear admission statements which have not been retracted by the Managing Directors/ partners etc. support this contention of the Revenue. The Revenue also has relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. AIA Engineering Pvt. Limited [2006 (195) ELT 154 (Tri. Mum.)]. The following observation is relevant which is r .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d that the credit taken on the basis of the fake and no genuine duty paying documents is required to be reversed. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the reversal of credit by M/s. AIA Engineering Pvt. Limited and Bhagwati Autocast Limited is justified 6. In the case of M/s. Akik Dyechem & Others (supra), there is difference of opinion between the Hon'ble Members and the matter was referred to the third Member. The Hon'ble third Member observed as under:- 8. It can be seen from t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 manufacturer as well as the manufacturing unit have availed CENVAT Credit based on only documents and reversal thereof is not serious .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

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

Go to Mobile Version