TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 181X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant - E/729, 730, 732, 808, 837, 838 & 839/10 - A/89219-89225/16/SMB - Dated:- 12-8-2016 - Shri Raju, Member (Technical) Shri Vipul Khandhar, C.A. for Appellant Shri Ashutosh Nath, AC (AR) ORDER These appeals are filed by (i) M/s Shyam Metal Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd., (ii) Shri Bharat Bhushan Kaushik, (iii) Shri Sunil Agarwal, (iv) Shri Ram Awatar Agarwal, (v) Shri Mahammadbhai Abdullali Master, (vi) Shri Mohsin H Memon (vii) Shri Harikrishna B Sonej. 2. The facts narrated in the impugned order are as follows: - 2.1 The Appellant No.1. procure their requirements of duty-paid scrap directly from the manufacturers including ship-breaking units and also through registered unregistered dealers in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tner of M/s. Akshar Trading Company, they are inter alia engaged in the trading business. 2.3 On the basis of the intelligence gathered, it was revealed that M/s. Aarkay Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd. and subsequently, the Appellant No. 1 were availing inadmissible Cenvat Credit on the strength of Invoices issued by M/s. Jindal Iron Steel Company Ltd., Vasind ( i.e. M/s. JISCO) and/or M/s. Jindal Steel Alloys Ltd., Vasind (i.e, M/s. JSAL) without actually receiving the goods mentioned in the said invoices in their factory premises. Accordingly, the officers of Central Excise, ThaneI Commissionerate searched the office premises of the Appellant NoA, who is the broker, named Shri Ram Awatar Kesardeo Agarwal, Proprietor of M/s. Manish Steel C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al trucks, lorries etc. and he depute his personnel to the place of loading of vehicles with documents received from the party booking the vehicle, that after reaching, his men gave the papers of D.O. to the truck driver, that on the basis of these D.Os the goods were loaded in the lorry. After the lorry is loaded, they gave the documents such as bills/ challans etc. and lorry receipt for their transport. Further, statement of said Shri Shantitalal Umarshi Shah, was also recorded on 17.11.2005, whereby he affirmed his statement dated 10.12.2003. He confirmed that he had transported the material from M/s. JISCO, Tarapur, and Vashind factory and for which he got the instructions from the parties located at Gujarat like Viramgam, Satej, Mausa, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 002. Penalty was also sought to be imposed on Noticee No. 4, 5, 6 7 under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The demand was confirmed by the original adjudicating authority and penalties were imposed on notice No. 2 to 7. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants approached the Commissioner (Appeals), who upheld the impugned order and rejected the appeals. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants are before this Tribunal. 3. Shri Vipul Khandhar, C.A. appeared for Shri Mohammad Abdul Ali Master and Shri Harikrishna Bhai Soneji. Shri Nimesh Mehta, Advocate appeared for Shri Ram Avatar Agarwal. Nobody appeared for other appellants. 3.1 Learned Counsel for the appellant Mohammadbhai Abdul Ali master, appellant No. 5 argued tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... em is improper as the said rule can only be invoked subject to the provisions of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. 3.2 Learned Counsel for Shri Harikrishna Bhai Soneji repeated the same argument as in the case of Shri Mohammadbhai Abdulali Master, appellant No. 5. 3.3 Learned Counsel for Shri Ran Awatar Agarwal, appellant No. 4 submits that there is no evidence that the appellant had broker in all the consignment figuring in the Annexure to the show-cause notice. There is no evidence that payment for the material was routed through the appellant. There is no evidence that the appellant had collected any Central Excise invoices from Shri Shantilal Shah of M/s Diamond Roadways. Learned Counsel argued that the appellant is a broker ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso involved in the case decided by Tribunal dated 26.06.2005 (referred above) which are common to this case as well: - (i) Mohammad Abdulali Master (ii) Mohsin Hajibhai Memon (iii) Harikrishna B Soneji (iv) Ram Awatar Agarwal (v) Diamond Roadways In that case the alleged modus operandi was identical. Goods were alleged to have been purchased from M/s Jindal Iron Steel Co. Ltd., Tarapur and Jindal Steel Alloys Ltd., Vashind and the same were allegedly diverted to various places in Viramgam. The invoices were allegedly sent to Amar Ispat Pvt. Ltd., like it in this case they are alleged to have been sent to Shyam Metal Pvt. Ltd. (appellant No. 1). 5.1 Date of Statements recorded under Section 14 of the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
