Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2017 (11) TMI 756

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tiate such recovery - demand rightly dropped. CENVAT credit - bogus invoices - Held that: - the case of the Revenue has been built up almost entirely on third party evidence which also stands denied in cross examination. There is no admission by the appellants about the receipt of only invoices without accompanying goods. These facts are also not corroborated by any evidence recovered from the appellants. There is also no evidence found in the appellant’s documents which show their involvement in the matter - It is well settled position of law that demand cannot be made only on the basis of third party documents - credit remains allowed. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee. - Excise Appeal No.1763, 1828-1829 & 2141 of 2012 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... at the Respondent have procured bogus invoices under which no goods have been received by them from the aforementioned suppliers and they have also sold the goods imported by them at ports or procured indigenously, without accountal and have merely used such invoices and Bills of Entry for manifesting procurement. This has been established by placing reliance on the following records and statements: (i) Ledgers of M/s. SOL and associates retrieved from the cashier, Mr. Kala s laptop, detail of bogus LRs issued by transporters, Depot records of M/s. SOL and associates and statements of key persons-all indicating that M/s. SOL and associates have issued bogus invoices to M/s. FIL without supplying the goods which were consigned to M/s. F .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s invoices from the aforementioned parties. The scrutiny reveals that out of 148 consignments verified as bogus on account of goods there under not found to have been transported to M/s. FIL, they have availed Cenvat credit on 39 invoices. The inputs purportedly procured under remaining 109 invoices/ Bills of entry, are shown to have been used in manufacture of export goods as per Registers for All Industry Rate of Duty Drawback [A/24 for the period 2006-07 and A/25 for the period 2007-081 maintained by M/s. FIL for the purpose of manifesting separate account of inputs used for goods exported under All Industry Drawback Rate. Scrutiny of registers A/24 and A/25 reveals that during the period 13.11.06 to 29.11.07, M/s. FIL have on the whole, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... l as Shri R. K. Mishra, DR representing both the parties. We have also perused the record. 5. At the outset, we consider the appeal filed by Revenue against the dropping of the demand for excess drawback. M/s FIL have exported the goods manufactured by them and claimed drawback at the All Industry Rate (AIR) from the Customs authorities at the port of export. The AIR prescribes two rates- a lower rate in cases of goods manufactured in a factory where the benefit of CENVAT credit is availed; and a higher rate in case no such credit is availed. M/s FIL claimed the AIR at higher rate by claiming that the export goods were made without claiming such credit. The adjudicating authority dropped the demand for reversal and Revenue is in appeal a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Cashier in his lap top. It stands originally admitted in his statements that no goods accompanied these bogus invoices. It also stands admitted that from the transporters, only the LRs were purchased but no goods were transported. The two main transporters- M/s BGFL and M/s BBTC, both operated by Shri Vishal Agarwal. Shri Agarwal also admitted in his statements confirming the above fact. But during the adjudication proceedings the appellant, sought cross examination of these persons, among others. Both the above persons have categorically denied the truth of the above statements. 8. We note that the case of the Revenue has been built up almost entirely on third party evidence which also stands denied in cross examination. There is no .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates