Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Universal Strips Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-I

Eligibility of CENVAT credit - fake invoices - whether the four invoices in question on the basis of which the appellant has availed the cenvat credit are genuine invoices or fake invoices - Held that:- 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 on .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nt and the department failed to prove the same by bringing on record any credible and convincing evidence. So much so, the appellant was not even allowed to cross-examine the office attendant whose statement was the only basis for framing the appellant. Therefore, the respondent has failed to establish the charge against the appellant. - Besides this the entire demand in this case is also time barred. The impugned show cause notice was issued on 17.10.2007 pertaining to the invoices dated 5 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

penalty does not arise when the demand is time barred. - Decided in favour of assessee - Appeal No. E/1193/10-Mum - Order No. A/86244/16/SMB - Dated:- 4-3-2016 - MR. S.S. GARG, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) For the Petitioner : Shri S.P. Tavkar, Consultant For the Respondent : Shri Sanjay Hasija, Superintendent (AR) ORDER This appeal is directed against the order-in-appeal dated 29.3.2010 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), wherein he upheld the order of the adjudicating authority. 2. Briefly the facts 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

te Assessable value Amount of total credit availed (Rs) Credit availed at RG23A entry No. & date 666/5.2.2004 14,13,042/- 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 al .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t to the appellant that they have availed the cenvat credit of ₹ 7,31,301/- wrongly against four fake/invalid invoices as stated above and directed the appellant to reverse the same along with interest of ₹ 1,42,764/-. The Revenue took into possession certain records vide panchnama dated 2.3.2006 and recorded statement dated 2.3.2006 of Shri Dinesh P. Jain, partner of the appellant, under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, wherein he has stated that the appellant received copper w .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e department. Thereafter the appellant filed a refund application vide their letter dated 28.2.2007 with the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, seeking refund of ₹ 7,31,301/- under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, but the Assistant Commissioner vide his letter dated 15.5.2007 returned the refund application as premature on the ground that investigation in the matter was still under progress. Thereafter a show cause notice dated 1.10.2007 was issued by the Additional Commissioner .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he demand along with interest and penalty and appropriated the amount deposited by the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the order of the adjudicating authority. Now the appellant has filed the present appeal. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is bad in law and is against the principles of natural justice as the respondent has failed to give due consideration to the various contention .....

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 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 ma .....

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. Annapurna Impex Pvt. Ltd. did not have the facility to manufacturer copper bars/copper rods. The learned counsel also submitted that the onus to prove this allegation was squarely on the department which the department failed to discharge and, therefore, the entire investigation in this case was faulty. He cited Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act to support his contention that the onus to prove the allegation was on the department which the department failed to discharge. 3.1 The learn .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lorry receipts and cheques under which the payments were made to M/s. Annapurna Impex Pvt. Ltd. for supplier of the impugned material were also supplied to the department as a corroborative evidence, but the department conveniently ignored the same. 3.2 He further submitted that it is a sound principle of jurisprudence that the onus of proof can be shifted only when one party effectively discharges its own burden. In the instant case, had the department discharged its burden of proof by verifyin .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ically verify the existence of availability of the machinery to manufacture copper rods, which was bypassed by the respondent. 3.4 He further submitted that the appellant was even denied cross-examination of the witnesses by the adjudicating authority. 3.5 He also submitted that as per the CBEC Circular dated 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 inclu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 appellan .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nalty under Section 11AC on the ground that there is no fraud, collusion or any wilful misstatement or suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty and, therefore, the respondent cannot invoke Section 11AC and moreover, the respondent has nowhere observed that the wrong availment and utilization of credit was on account of fraud or collusion etc. with intent to evade duty. 4. On the other hand, the learned AR has submitted that the onus to prove that the appellant has rightly availe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ex Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Ludhiana reported in 2014 (311) ELT 291 (Tri.-Del.); (ii) Shree Labdhi Prints vs. CCE, Surat reported in 2014 (308) ELT 178 (Tri.-Ahmd.); (iii) Akik Dyechem Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Ahmedabad reported in 2013 (290) ELT 273 (Tri.-Ahmd.); (iv) CCE vs. Shri Ram Aluminium Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2009 (242) ELT 202 (Bom.); (v) Chivas International vs. CCE, New Delhi reported in 2006 (197) ELT 270 (Tri.-Del.); (vi) Shri Ram Aluminium Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Daman reported in 2006 (199) ELT 33 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

g 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 P .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     Update Alerts     ↓  


|| 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