9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 547X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l melting scrap and MS scraps from central excise registered dealers availing CENVAT thereof and using them in manufacture of finished products. It appeared to the department that UAL were availing irregular CENVAT credit on non-duty paid inputs received fraudulently in the guise of secondary MS angles, MS ingots, End Cut, HR sheets, centre disc etc. From the investigations carried out, it appeared to the department that there were variations between the description of goods received and furnished in the respective dealers' invoices. Statements were recorded from the suppliers / dealers namely M/s. Algappa & Co. (herein after referred to as Alagappa), M/s. Sri Amman Steel, M/s. Vijay Kamal Traders, M/s. Guru Raghavendra & Co. and Shri P. Ku ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut that items like centre disc, end-cut plates, bulk broken plates etc. received from M/s. Wheels India Ltd. and M/s. Axles India Ltd. were only supplied to UAL. However, during the cross-examination, he has retracted his say which he had made on 11.11.2008 in respect of MS ingots, MS angles were also retraced. None of the other persons whose statements were relied on turned up for cross-examination. 2.2 The ld. counsel submits that there is no dispute about receipt of raw materials in the factory or about utilization of such inputs in the manufacture. 3. On the other hand, ld. AR draws our attention to para 58 of the order of the original authority where the original authority has found that UAL has received non-duty paid MS scrap under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xure - II to the notice in page 77 of the paper book, that the relied upon documents are CENVAT availed invoices of various dealers and statements of those from dealers and statement of lab in charge of UAL. 5.1 From the facts on record, there is no allegation that the supplier / dealers are not registered. It is also indicated that these dealers have received various types of scrap from manufacturers and at the same time, they have also purchase local scrap in cash. The allegation by the department is that the scrap that they supply to UAL was not one which was sourced from the manufacturers and that there was a difference in the description and the raw material actually supplied. The entire edifices for such allegations are the statement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dit was availed on receipt of bazaar scrap describing them as industrially generated scrap. The department had extended the investigation right upto the suppliers of the scrap and had found that the purported ship breaking units were non-existent. There is no such investigation forthcoming in this particular case. 5.4 In the event, we find that the department has not sufficiently proved its case. The allegations in the show cause notice are not supported by any solid evidence but only statements. Hence, even a preponderance of probability has not been proved by the department. 6. In the light of the discussions and conclusions above, we find in favour of the appellant. The impugned order cannot then sustain and will require to be set asid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
