Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Master Traders and M/s. Ispat Industries Ltd Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane-I

2016 (8) TMI 1106 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Demand - fraudulent Cenvat credit availed on the invoices issued by M/s. Ispat Industries Ltd - Held that:- On going through decisions of this Tribunal in cases of Amar Ispat Pvt Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Thane-I, it is found that facts, of other cases, evidences and modus operandi are more or less same in these decisions therefore the ratio of the various decisions of Tribunal are squarely applicable in the present case. Therefore it is established that the appellant have availed C .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

5 TO 42/Th-I/10 dated 15/3/2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai-I wherein Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) upheld the Order-in-Original and dismissed the appeals of the appellants. 2. The fact of the case is that M/s. Steel Rolling Mill of Maharashtra(M/s. SRMM), having its factory located at Village Gandhre, New MSEB Sub Station, Taluka-Wada, District -Thane is engaged in manufacture of Mild Steel, Ingots falling under Chapter 72 of the First schedule to the Central Exci .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

like Raipur, Nagpur, Viramgam and Mumbai against the concerned transporters, M/s. Ispat Industries Limited, the Viramgam based dealers and the broker. The officers had, during the course of inquiry and investigation, recorded statements of various persons under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and withdrew various records under the panchanamas from various places. 4. In view of the above facts of the matters and after recording statements of the individuals involved in the conspiracy .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

me. 5. Shri. Roshil Nichani, Ld. Counsel and Shri. Akshit Malhotra, Advocate, Shri. Nimesh Mehta, Advocate appeared on behalf of the Appellants, None appeared in the appeal No. C/728,731/10. I have considered the submissions made on merit of the issue; judgments relied upon by the Ld. Counsels and facts of the present case during the course of hearing in the court. 6. Shri. Ashutosh Nath, Ld. Asstt. Commissioner(A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned or .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

On the identical facts and under same investigation in many other cases, demands were confirmed. On comparison with cases disposed of by this Tribunal in particular Amar Ispat Pvt Ltd (supra), Bhagvati Steel Cast Ltd (supra), Ajay Kumar G. Baheti & others Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Nashik[2015-TIOL-1609-CESTAT-MUM] and Jai Prakash Strips Ltd & others Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Nashik[2015-TIOL-2614-CESTAT-MUM] it is observed that the facts, evid .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

case of Amar Ispat Pvt Ltd(supra) decisions the Tribunal held as under: 9. In the present case, the Revenue has raised the demand in respect of 403 invoices. Invoices are pertaining to HR trimmings. Revenue's case is that the said HR trimmings were transported from Jindals, Vasind/Tarapur to Viramgam based dealers/SSI units while the corresponding invoices were made in the name of the main appellant and the said invoices did not travel along with the goods, but only the invoices were receiv .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

document evidencing payment of freight charges to the driver/transporter in respect of each invoice (whether paid in cash or by any other means). The appellant's main contention was that they have paid for the goods through banking channels and if at all the goods were not supplied, it is because of the manipulation by the supplier. We are not convinced with such argument. First of all, payment through banking channel in such manipulated transactions is a part of the manipulation only and i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s factory. We also note that almost in all transactions, the vehicle registration numbers are of Gujarat It is a common knowledge that a vehicle registered in Gujarat cannot undertake the freight movement from one place to the other within the State of Maharashtra. Such vehicle can only take the interstate freight, i.e. Maharashtra to Gujarat in this case. Moreover, HR trimmings in coil form are very different from bazaari/scavenger scrap and can be distinguished by any person in the business. 9 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

02 issued by M/s. JSAL favouring M/s. AIPL It shows that the H.R. Trimmings consigned to M/s. AIPL on 14.12.2002 were in fact transported to Gujarat." (ii) -"vi) From the records of M/s. New Shri Swaminarayan Transport it was found that 84 vehicles consigned to M/s. AIPL from M/s. JISCO & M/s. JSAL were in fact transported the goods to various destinations in Gujarat. The vehicle numbers in the above 84 cases are appearing on the invoices issued by M/s. JISCO & M/s. JSAL in the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

, Tarapur issued in favour of M/s. AIPL was transported to Satej in vehicle No. GJ 11 W 2910." (v) - "iv) Further from the records of M/s. Star Industries, Tarapur it was found that goods consigned to M/s. AIPL from M/s. JISCO, Vasind under invoice No. 1306515 dated 11.9.2003 and 1307516 dated 11.10.2003 through vehicle No. MCT 5101 and MCU 1051 respectively were in fact delivered to M/s. Star Industries, Tarapur." (vi) - "iii) Shri Janedrasingh Ramsingh Sodha residing at Jam .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Steel Co. Tarapur 13102274 5.7.03 5 Jindal Iron and Steel Co. Tarapur 13103087 1.8.03 6 Jindal Iron and Steel Co. Tarapur 1207371 12.8.03 7 Jindal Steel & Alloys Ltd. Vasind 1207371 17.12.02 8 Jindal Steel & Alloys Ltd. Vasind 1207731 28.12.02" Many of these are in addition to the statements, as against this the appellant was not able to produce any evidence regarding transport any receipt of the goods in respect of any of the invoices. In our considered view, the only conclusion to .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed counsel for the appellants' main grievance is relating to non-permission of cross-examination by the adjudicating authority. We find in the present case that the appellant wanted to cross-examine mainly the co-noticees and as held by this Tribunal in the case of Maya Mahal Industies (supra) as also in the case of Jagdish Shanker Trivedi (supra) read with Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, we are of the view that no prejudice has been caused to the appellants, particularly keeping .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

that denial of cross-examination has prejudiced their case. This Tribunal in the case of Jagdish Shanker Trivedi (supra) has observed as under:- "7. We first take up the contention that there was denial of principles of natural justice by not offering the witnesses for cross-examination by the appellant Ashish Kumar Chaurasia, despite his request that all witnesses should be examined. We have already noted that the appellant, Ashish Kumar Chaurasia had cross-examined two officers on 19-6-1 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed that no order confiscating any goods or imposing any penalty on any person shall be made under Chapter IV unless the owner of the goods or such person is given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter, does not specify any right of cross-examination." 11. Another contention of the learned counsel for the appellants was that the statements a-re at times self contradictory or are contradicting each other's statements. We have gone through the statements. While there are so .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ter assessing the information already available with the investigating officers. In the later statements when they were shown more details, they came out with correct facts. We also note that the above modus operandi relating to diversion of HR trimmings to Viramgam and selling of the invoices to various iron and steel furnace units was done by number of steel furnace units and with reference to number of producers of HR coils /trimmings and the statements of various persons particularly the bro .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

3, 4 and 5 are Viramgam based brokers/traders who in fact were participating in the auction bidding process either themselves or through brokers based in Mumbai and were purchasing the HR trimmings from manufacturers such as Jindals in this case. Later on. the HR trimmings were going to Viramgam. Since the invoices of such HR trimmings were of no use to them, they were trading the invoices through brokers based in Mumbai who in turn were locating the furnace units who could fraudulently avail 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

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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

Go to Mobile Version