9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 997X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,042/- 2,26,087/- 36/9.2.2004 808/17.3.2004 9,64,720/- 1,54,355/- 37/25.3.2004 73/22.6.2004 1,17,120/- 1,78,739/- 40/26.6.2004 313/25.3.2005 10,54,656/- 1,72,120/- 49/28.3.2005 The appellant has disclosed the cenvat credit availed and duty paid on the finished goods in their ER-1 returns filed for the month of February 2004, March 2004, June 2004 and March 2005. It is further alleged that a search was carried out by DGCEI at the factory of the said supplier M/s. Annapurna Impex Pvt. Ltd. and a panchnama dated 18.5.2005 and statement dated 18.5.2005 of one Shri Purshottam Lal, attendant of M/s. Annapurna Impex Pvt. Ltd., was recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 during the search of the premises of M/s. Annapurna Impex Pvt. Ltd. Thereafter the records of the appellant were audited by EA-2000 Special Audit Group and during the audit, it was pointed out to the appellant that they have availed the cenvat credit of Rs. 7,31,301/- wrongly against four fake/invalid invoices as stated above and directed the appellant to reverse the same along with interest of Rs. 1,42,764/-. The Revenue took into possession certain records vide panchnama dated 2.3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Appeals) has ignored the fact that M/s. Annapurna Impex Pvt. Ltd. had supplied the inputs prior to the date of panchnama dated 18.5.2005 and were having machinery installed in their factory for inputs supplied to the appellant. The panchnama was drawn and the statement of Shri Purshottam Lal was recorded on 18.5.2005 whereas the inputs were dispatched much prior to that date vide invoices No.666/5.2.2004, 808/17.3.2004, 73/22.6.2004 and 313/25.3.2005. He further submitted that the proceedings of panchnama and the statement dated 18.5.2005 could have only prospective effect and could not be made applicable with retrospective effect. He further submitted that the entire case of the department is based only on the panchnama and statement dated 18.5.2005 of the attendant of the manufacturer, but the respondent has conveniently overlooked the affidavit dated 2.3.2006 of none other than the Director of M/s. Annapurna Impex Pvt. Ltd. solemnly affirming that the machinery was installed in the factory. The Director had appealed to the department to send a team of officers at any time to verify the factual position but the department never bothered to verify the same and in the absence of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated 28.5.1986, the appellant had taken sufficient precautions envisaged in Rule 7(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 / Rule 9(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 which among other things includes filing of the monthly statement of details of the impugned credit availed in the month of February 2004, March 2004, June 2004 and March 2005. These statements provided all the particulars and the name of the supplier of inputs, description of inputs supplied, its tariff hearing, quantity, value, duty involved, suppliers central excise registration number etc. He also submitted that when the appellant had already declared to the department all the particulars of availment of cenvat credit, then in that case it was expected from the department to carry out necessary verification as per the instructions contained in the above cited circular. Moreover, the appellant has also maintained registers/records as per para 3.10 of Chapter 5 of CBEC's Central Excise Manual, thereby complied with the provisions of Rule 9(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 3.6 The learned counsel also submitted that the entire demand is time barred as there is no attempt whatsoever on the part of the appellant not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the department, these are fake invoices whereas according to the appellant, these are valid invoices containing all the particulars viz. name of the supplier of inputs, description of inputs supplied, its tariff heading, quantity, value, the duty involved, suppliers central excise registration number etc. and thereafter the partner of the appellant made in the statement under Section 14 specifically stating that they have received the material against these invoices and the appellant has also produced the verification report from the State Excise Department, which shows the movement of the goods from Punjab to Maharashtra and has also placed on record the lorry receipts which also contained the relevant particulars regarding the identity of the goods. 6.1 Further I find that in this case the investigation by the department is totally faulty and defective. The department did not bother to verify the particulars contained in the invoices submitted by the appellant by visiting the premises of M/s. Annapurna Impex Pvt. Ltd. The department has conveniently recorded the statement of one office attendant Shri Purshottam Lal, to make the basis of the entire case and further, the stateme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
