TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 644X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns of the Revenue are also corroborated by other independent evidences and hence cross examination is not required. This stand of the Adjudicating Authority is a clear violation of the mandate of Section 9 D of the Central Excise Act read with Ruling of the Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of Jindal Drugs [ 2016 (6) TMI 956 - PUNJAB HARYANA HIGH COURT ] and the requirement of cross examination reiterated by the Hon ble Supreme Court in its ruling in Andaman Timber Industries [ 2015 (10) TMI 442 - SUPREME COURT ] . Thus, there is mis-carriage of justice causing prejudice to the appellants. The contention of the appellants that they have received their raw materials under dispute, is also established by the fact that they have manufactured the finished goods, which have been mainly cleared for export. The Revenue has failed to discharge the onus as regards the source of receipt of raw materials from any other alternative source rather have made a bald allegation on the manufacturers that they have received bazaar scrap on payment in cash - there is no basis for such allegations except assumptions and presumptions. The cross examination in the facts and ci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w of the fact of the manufacture and clearance of the finished goods is on payment of duty. Further, there is no allegation of any flow back of money after the payment has been made through banking channels. Further, the appellant manufacturers have exported their goods and have received the export proceeds, although at some delay and have produced deficit BRCs, which have been annexed in the appeal paper books. Dispute of quantitative details of the manufacture and sales - HELD THAT:- Such allegations are vague and not based on any cogent evidence or standard input out norms. The allegation of the Revenue as regards the inflation of sale price of the finished goods is also vague. The Revenue has only disputed the sale price with respect to the metal price of Aluminum on LME, which is only a bald allegation. Sale price are the result of market force including demand and supply, among others. No buyer will pay any abnormal high price to please the seller. There is no allegation of hawala transactions in the export made by the exporter, being fake or made to their related party. The allegations of the Revenue against the appellant are not substantiated - Appeal allowed - deci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... JJIL (KPPL) 2,39,15,431 (rebate) 2,39,15,431/- u/s 11C E/52672/2019 9. JJIL (KPPL) 50,00,000/- u/s 26 E/52672/2019 10. RAPL 85,54,240 Cenvat credit 85,54,240/- U/s 26 11. P. Ent. 1,34,66,571 1,34,66,571 (Arising out of order in original No. 24/Pr.COMMR./CEX/UJN/2018-2019 dated 27.03.2019 passed by the Principal Commissioner, Central Goods, Service Tax Central Excise, Ujjain). Sl.No. Name Duty Penalty under Section Appeal Nos. 12. MSAPL 3,83,72,609 3,83,72,609 13. JJIL (KPPL) 2,35,26,409 (rebate) 2,35,26,409 u/s 11 AC 14. Om Pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... D Pithampur, under claim for rebate of central excise duty paid on the goods cleared for export, or DEPB. 5.1 Another company, Mungad Steels and Alloys Pvt. Ltd., of which Shri Gaurav Mungad is one of the Directors, has got central excise registration (as a manufacturer Trader) located at Rambali Nagar, Indore, is engaged in the manufacture and removal of excisable goods, being Aluminium profiles, ingots, etc. and are also engaged in trading including export. 5.2 Ocean Impex is a proprietorship concern of Mr. Ravi Laddha and is a registered dealer and an importer of aluminium scrap. They have supplied scrap mainly to JIL and Prerna Enterprises (PE), another registered dealer and exporter of aluminium alloy conductors. Its proprietor is one Shri Praveen Tamhankar. Further, Prerna Enterprises resold scrap to Mungad Steels. Mungad Steels supplied ingots to JIL Prerna Enterprises. Further, Mungad Steels purchased the aluminium conductors from JIL and thereafter exported the same under rebate claim. They also sold conductors to Prerna Enterprises, and Prerna Enterprises have exported the same under the claim of rebate. 6. JIL/KPPL purchased scrap from Ocean Impex and also f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No.88/DCM 8728 PX D001, whereas RG 23-A Part-II seized from the factory has shown as Entry No.332 dated 11 November 2010, Invoice No. KP/PIV OID/022 - Party S.S. Enterprises - ECC No. AB UPL 6134 BET 001. (This ECC number pertains to M/s. Ocean Impex). Such invoices appeared to be fabricated and forged. Initially, Prerna Enterprises availed fraudulent Cenvat credit and subsequently passed on the same to M/s.KPPL or Mungad Steels, through Ocean Impex. 8. The residential premises of Shri Praveen Tamhankar, Proprietor of Prerna Enterprises was also searched on 20 November 2011, during which the officers recovered and seized photocopies of purchase invoices of M/s.Prena Enterprises. However, no sales invoices of Prena Enterprises were available at the residence. These purchase invoices had purportedly been issued by certain parties based at Ahmedabad and Mumbai namely M/s. Maruti Aluminium Private Ltd., M/s.Maliwal Impex (P) Ltd., Ghanshyam Metal Udyog, Ahmedabad, M/s.Servashwar Metal, Ahmedabad and Ramdev Enterprises, Ahmedabad and M/s. Bothra Metals Alloys (P) Ltd. and M/s. R.K. Metal Corporation, Mumbai. It appeared to Revenue that the serial No. of these invoices along with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rsons were recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The firms/companies submitted their documents like sales ledgers and original copies of the sales invoices bearing the same serial Nos. which were appearing (as per seized photocopies of the purchase invoices of Prena Enterprises), etc. It appeared that these parties of Ahmedabad and Mumbai never sold any goods to Prerna Enterprises, KPPL, Mungad Steels, Ocean Impex, etc., on the strength of the said invoices. They had never issued such invoices, so recovered from the premises of Praveen Tamhankar, and whose details were appearing in cenvat register of KPPL, as initially submitted with the Range Officer, and available in the seized hard disc. It appeared that these parties had sold aluminium scrap to some other persons vide the invoices of even serial nos. Most of these dealers categorically and vehmentally stated in their statements that all the seized invoices shown to them (recovered from Shri Praveen Tamhankar), were fake, bogus and forged. Thus, it appeared cenvat credit was availed by KPPL, on the strength of such bogus, fake and forged invoices. Thus, it appeared that neither the goods were received by M/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... investigation, Mr. Sanjay Gupta of Gupta Transport Service denied the transportation. It was also noticed that the vehicle no. shown for transportation were incapable/unregistered. Similar observations were there by Revenue, after scrutiny of Cenvat Register for the month of November 2010 to December 2010. 13. During scrutiny of Cenvat register (seized from the factory), it appeared to Revenue that KPPL have availed fraudulent cenvat credit on the basis of invoices issued by Prerna Enterprises towards purchase of furnace oil. It appeared that Prerna Enterprises had issued forged invoices bearing Nos.KP/FO/001 to 019 during the month of December 2010 and (Nos.KP/FO/020 to KP/FO/024) during January 2011. As per the invoices, it was evident that Prena Enterprises had shown to have availed cenvat credit on invoices issued by M/s. Essar Oil Ltd, Jamnagar and Kotak Petrochem Private Ltd Jodhpur; whereas on going through the cenvat register as available in the hard disk, (as submitted initially by KPPL to Range Office) and the printouts taken from hard disk on 2nd December, 2011, KPPL had mentioned therein the different invoice number pertaining to the parties, i.e M/s. VCRM Petroch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri Vaibhav Mungad. Subsequently, Shri Ravi Ladha retracted his statement vide Affidavit dated 2.12.2011 before the Notary Public, Bhilwara, Rajasthan. It is stated that his statement was recorded under pressure and is not true and correct. The said retraction was refuted by the Addl. Director, DGCEI vide letter dated 17.01.2012. In the course of search at Mungad Alloys Pvt. Ltd., no records or documents were found. It was stated by the Director that the records were sent to the Consultant at Mumbai. They shall arrange to call for the same for verification. It was subsequently informed by MSAPL that the said records, which were being carried by the Representative - Shri Rahul Parihar, who was returning from Mumbai on 18.11.2011 to Indore, got lost in transit and as the person was traveling in train in an unreserved accommodation, resulting into loss of the records due to theft. Copy of the FIR was also filed. Inquiry was also made one from Shri Sanjay Sharma, Husband of the owner of the Truck No.MP09GE2021, as the said truck number was appearing in several invoices. In his statement, Shri Sanjay Sharma stated that the truck is a Tata 1109 having capacity of 9 MT having closed co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to Gupta Transport Services and the same have been disposed of after closure of the firm. He accepted the billities of Gupta Transport Services as prepared by his Representative, Shri Ajay Rehtankar. He also stated that the name of the supplier in some of the billities of Ocean Impex is not known to him. Shri Sanjay Gupta subsequently retracted his statement vide affidavit dated 11.12.2011, which was received in the office of the DGCEI on 20.12.2011. Thereafter, in response to further summons issued, Sanjay Gupta did not appear before the Revenue Authorities. 19. Statement of one Shri Vikas Awasthi, Proprietor of Sonu Road Line, Indore was recorded on 7.12.2011, who, inter alia, stated that they own 5 trucks, which are engaged in transportation works. They also arranged trucks from other transporters on commission basis for transportation work on the strength of their billities or LRs. Further, it was stated by him that he knows Shri Gaurav Mungad and accepted that he has been doing transport work for them regularly for many years. 20. Statement of Shri Rajendra Kumar Bansi Lal Chechani, Director of Maruti Aluminium Pvt. Ltd. (supplier of goods to Prerna Enterprises) was rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hey were not in a position to furnish any information or copy of their records. As per memory, he denied any transaction with Prerna Enterprises, DAPL, Ocean Impex but accepted having transactions with MSAPL and JIJI/KPPL. On being confronted with the copy of the invoices purportedly issued by them (found from the premises of Prerna Enterprises), he denied having issued any such invoices. From the statement of one Shri Mukesh Samdani, Director of Sarveweswar Metal, Ahmedabad was recorded on 10.12.2011, wherein he inter alia stated that they are registered dealer in aluminum scrap. They have never issued any invoices nor had any transactions with Prerna Enterprises, DAPL, MSAPL, SS Enterprises, S.K. Marketing and Adinath Traders. However, he had accepted their transactions and supplied aluminum scrap to KPPL. On being confronted with one invoice purportedly issued by them seized from the premises of Prerna Enterprises, he denied the same and further produced copies of the parallel invoices for transaction with some other party. 24. Further, the statement of Shri Satish Bucha, Accountant of Bothra Metals Alloys, Mumbai-II was recorded on 20.12.2011, who, inter alia, stated that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... report was called from the Range Officer to verify the duty payment particulars, and without waiting for a verification for reasonable time, rebate claims were sanctioned on 1.2.2011, asking the RO to confirm the correctness of duty payment within 15 days, failing which, it shall be presumed that appropriate duty has been paid. It further appeared that no proper efforts were made by the Range Officer, Range-IV, Indore to verify the genuineness of input invoices and excise duty paid on inputs received by MSAPL. However, the Range Officer issued verification certificate regarding correctness of the duty paid by MSAPL on the invoices issued by them to KPPL. 27. In the course of investigation, Dy. Commissioner, Bhopal-II, vide his letter dated 30.01.2012 to DGCEI stated that, as appearing from the original file in respect of rebate claims, filed by Prerna Enterprises (30) as merchant exporter and KPPL (64) and RAPL. It appeared that invoices were issued by RAPL to Star Innovation Middle East, Sharjah, for which ARE-I were filed by RAPL, as a manufacturer, for export of Alloy Aluminium Conductors under warehouse sealing from ICD, Mandideep. ARE-I were filed by Prerna Enterprises show ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... showing therein duty payment particular, disclaimer certificate from the merchant exporter. 30. The statement of Shri Gaurav Mungad, Managing Director of JIJI/KPPL and Director of MSAPL was recorded on several dates (10.01.2012, 11.01.2012, 01.06.2012 to 07.06.2012), wherein, inter alia, he stated that burning loss is normal from 5 to 10% and generation of dross/scrap was between 25% to 35%. Further, Aluminium chips and process scrap is also generated during manufacture, which is about 10% to 20%, in the manufacture of aluminium profile/conductors. The appellant maintained Form-IV Register for input. Furnace oil is not entered in the Form-IV register and the same is directly consumed. Further, KPPL is also engaged in trading in non-cenvatable scrap. Such scrap does not enter the factory premises, only the accounting entries are made. He further stated that Aluminium Scrap is imported directly or on high Sea Sale basis by KPPL/M/s.JIJI. Apart from import, Aluminium scrap has also been procured from domestic market. Ocean Impex, MSAPL, Maliwal Impex, Maruti Aluminium Pvt.Ltd., Ghanshyam Metal Udyog, M/s.MV Enterprises, M/s.Jagdish Aluminium Pvt. Ltd. , M/s.Kanha Aluminium Pvt. Ltd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... luminium scrap from Prerna Enterprises and sold/transferred the same to KPPL/JIJI at Indore itself. Further, stated that on his request, Shri Praveen Tamhankar, Proprietor of Prerna Enterprises was providing the professional services in relation to DGFT, export/import, etc. They have also been purchasing the raw materials and inputs from Prerna Enterprises, who are registered dealers under the Central Excise Act. They also received Aluminium scrap and furnace oil from Prerna Enterprises during 2010-2011. 31. On being confronted with the statement of various parties alleged suppliers of raw materials at Ahmedabad and Mumbai, with documentary evidence, collected from them, wherein most of them have denied having transaction with Prerna Enterprises, MSAPL, Ocean Impex, Mr. Gaurav Mungad confirmed and admitted that copy of the purchase invoice recovered from the premises of the Praveen Tamhankar, Proprietor of Prerna Enterprises, are fake/forged and further stated that the cenvat credit passed on by Prerna Enterprises on the strength of such invoices to KPPL is wrong. He further stated that Shri Dharamendra, Junior Accountant, who was working as a trainee at that time, committed cer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has sold the goods to KPPL, but the materials /inputs did move from MSAPL to KPPL. The transportation has been done on own vehicles, and the transport documents are not available. 33. He further stated that Shri Ravi Laddha, Proprietor of Ocean Impex is not very well conversant with the documentation and hence committed clerical errors in documentation. 34. On being confronted with the high export price of Aluminium Conductors, Shri Gaurav Mungad stated that MSAPL had purchased inputs @ 500 kgs. approximately and after processing, they have sold the same @2100/- per kg. for export. Hence, the goods manufactured under technical specification required expertise and also the generation of higher scrap. Further, stated that KPPL has got two melting furnace, in which scrap of Aluminium, Alloy, etc. are melted so as to manufacture Aluminum logs containing Alloy as per specific order. Such logs are converted into billets after necessary cutting and thereafter further extruded on extrusions press to manufacture Aluminum Profile and Alloy Aluminum Conductors. Alloy Aluminum Conductors are solid sections, whereas Aluminum Profiles are either solid or hollow sections. 35. On being co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot be seen, as it was used as flux. 41. On being asked, he stated that they have submitted most of the BRCs in support of the receipt of export proceeds. Some are pending, which they shall deposit in due course. He further stated that on verbal request they have supplied costing sheet of export goods to the officers of ICD, Pithampur. He further stated that in the month of November, 2011, their 4 export containers, which were factory stuffed was opened and examined by the officers at ICD, Pithampur.Samples were drawn and thereafter allowed for export. Such exports were under the claim of duty drawback, which is yet to be sanctioned. He further stated that Shri O.P. Maheshwari, Shri Vaibhav Mungad, Shri Ravi Laddha, Shri Abhash Mungad and Shri Praveen Tamhankar acted in his over all directions. 42. Mr. Abhash Mungad (Nephew of Shri Gaurav Mungad), Director of Field Irrigation Pvt. Ltd. and Authorised Signatory of RAPL appeared before the Revenue Authorities and his statement was recorded on 11.06.2012. He, inter alia, stated that Field Irrigation Pvt. Ltd is a manufacturing unit, which has come in existence in April, 2011 for manufacture of drip irrigation pipes and they start ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .K. Marketing was recorded on 22.06.2012. He, inter alia, stated that presently he is working as meltor in the factory of National Steel Agro Ltd.. Earlier, he was working as a Melter in the factory of JIJI, wherein he was posted for about three years. He left the job from JIJI in April, 2011. During the period, he worked with JIJI, from April, 2008 to April, 2011, he manufactured Aluminium Sections, Profiles, etc. The furnace capacity of JIJI is approximately 3 MT. From Aluminium Scrap, aluminium logs were manufactured of 12 Ft to 16 Ft. These were further cut and extruded to manufacture Aluminium Sections /profiles. He also stated that during October, 2010 to April, 2011, JIJI was manufacturing Aluminium flats/bars, which were exported by them. He has never seen silver scrap being used in the factory of JIJI. Aluminium dross was generated approximately 8% to 10%. He further stated that he did sign on some papers/forms at the instructions of Shri Shailendra Yadav, who is working as Driver in JIJI Industries. He does not deny that the bank account was open in the name of partnership firm and proprietorship firm, but has never operated such accounts. 48. During investigation, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er to have authenticated test report, the sample was forwarded vide Test Bond dated 16.08.2012 to CRCL to ascertain their physical properties and mettatur /alloy/chemical composition. As per report dated 16.10.2012 of the Asstt. Chemical Examiner, CRCL, is as follows:- On opening of the sample packet, it was found to contain sample in form of metallic cuboids. Each is mainly composed of aluminium along with other elements i.e. Si, Fe, Cu, Mg, Mn,Ti, Zn, Ni, Pb, Sn, Cr, Be, Zr, V and Aluminium 96% and above. 53. It is further opined that the sample does not meet the requirement for Aluminum Alloy Conductor. 54. On comparison of the report of the CRCL and Shri D.K. Jain, CE, it appeared to Revenue that the goods exported by JIJI and MSAPL cannot be called as Alloy Aluminium Conductors and further, the goods exported appeared to be inflated in value. 55. During investigation, it was seen, vide letter dated 8.10.2010 that JIJI informed the Astt. Commissioner of the Division that they are engaged in the manufacture of Aluminium Profile and section, and will manufacture a new product Alloy of Aluminium and Silver (content of silver being 3.5%), which is known in the ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n. Further, it was proposed to demand rebate claim sanctioned ₹ 2,35,26,409/- during the period October 2010 to November, 2010. Further, penalty was proposed under Rule 15 of CCR, Rule 25 of CER as well interest. 58. MSAPL was directed to show cause as to why cenvat credit of ₹ 3,83,72,609/- including cess be not dis-allowed and demanded, being credit taken during October, 2010 to Jan. 2011. Proposal to impose penalty on the other appellants, to show cause as to why not penalty be imposed under Section 26 of CER. 59. Another show cause notice dated 10.04.2014 of even dated also issued by DGCEI on more or less similar allegations arising out of the same investigation. JIJI was required to show cause as to why erroneous rebate of duty on exported goods totaling ₹ 2,39,15,431/- sanctioned by the Maritime Commissioner, Central Excise, Bhopal be not demanded and recovered by invoking the extended period of limitation. It was further proposed to impose penalty under Rule 25 of CER. 60. M/s Radhe Aluminium Pvt. Ltd. was required to show cause as to why cenvat credit demand of ₹ 84,54,240/- on the allegation of credit taken without actually receipt and cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ahmedabad, Mumbai, etc. have denied the supply of inputs to Prerna Enterprises, Ocean Impex, etc., who in turn, have passed on the cenvatable goods with credit to JIJI Industries and MSAPL. The appellants had prayed for cross examination of the persons, whose statements have been relied upon by the Revenue. The appellants in their reply to the show cause notice had also given a specific list of several persons praying for the cross examination. However, the cross examination was not allowed without any cogent reason, making a valid allegation on the appellants of delaying tactics, in spite of this being the second round of litigation. 69. It is further urged that the demand of cenvat credit from MSAPL is bad for ₹ 2,46,58,188/-, as the same also forms part of the cenvat credit demanded from JIJI Industries. Vice versa clearances were also made from JIJI to MSAPL and credits were availed by MSAPL, and so the demands so raised, result in double demand of the same amount. 70. Thus, the demand of cenvat credit availed plus the rebate results in total demand of ₹ 6,09,08,411/- in the hands of the JIJI Industries. 71. Admittedly, the allegation of variation in the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bank loans in crores and they were subject to regular stock audit and factory visit by the officers of the bank or their authorized agents, and there being never any adverse report. It is further urged that the turnover of MSAPL and /or their purchases also include the quantity traded by them, which have been ignored, vitiating the impugned order. 74. It is further urged that vide various orders-in-original, rebate claims were allowed after proper verification of the cenvat credit availed and thus, such orders-in-original granting rebate have attained finality, as no appeal has been preferred by the Department. Thus, dis-allowance of rebate claim in the hands of the appellants is bad and fit to be set aside. It is further urged that several inputs suppliers at Ahmedabad and Mumbai in their statements have stated that they know the appellants JIJI Industries and MSAPL and have had their business transactions with them, which fact has been ignored by the Adjudicating Authority. 75. It is further urged that the impugned order is in gross violation of the provisions of the Section 9 D of the Central Excise Act, which provides that a statement made and signed by a person before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entachem Pvt. Ltd. 2018(360) ELT 1025 (Tribunal Delhi) Stelco Strips Ltd. Vs. CCE, Ludhiana 2017(358) ELT 481 (Tribunal-Chandigarh) Nidhi Metal Auto Components P. Ltd. 2016 (343) ELT 576 (Tribunal-Delhi) Vikram Cement (P) Ltd. 2012 (286) ELT 615 (Tribunal-Delhi) Jindal Drugs Pvt. Ltd. -2016 (340) ELT 67 (P H) Basudev Garg- 2013 (294) ELT 353 (Delhi) Andaman Timber Industries 2015 (324) ELT 641 (SC) 76. It is further urged that the quantity of inputs disputed is about 4730 MTs, as per the transport norms of 10T per vehicle about 450 trucks loads are required. Whereas the Revenue have in the course of its inquiry enquired with only few transporters and drawn adverse conclusion, which is bad and fit to be set aside. It is further urged that the allegation of Revenue are not substantiated and the same are based on presumptions and assumptions. It is further urged that the contention of the appellant JIJI that aluminium scrap imported by Ocean Impex was received in their factory, have not been found to be untrue as no other buyer of such imported aluminium scrap has been identified. 77. It is further urged that the demand of cenvat credit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tity of aluminium scrap claimed to have been generated during the disputed period is far in excess of the quantity of finished goods manufactured. Further, to justify the consumption of huge quantity of raw materials, far in excess of the requirement, the generation of scrap/by-products has been inflated. 84. Further, in order to quickly encash the fraudulently cenvat credit through export under rebate claim, the value of the goods exported has been inflated. 85. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the appeals by the assesses and for allowing the cross objection of the Revenue. 86. Having considered the rival contentions and on perusal of the records, we find that the main question to be decided in these appeals is whether JIJI/KPPL, MSAPL and RAPL are guilty for taking fraudulent credit on the basis of the forged invoices without receipt of inputs mentioned therein. Other question for consideration is whether the duty was paid on clearances for export, the refund of which has been sanctioned as export rebate is recoverable from them and whether other appellants being director, proprietors, authorized signatory are liable for penalty under Rule 26 of CER of 2002. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arma, Husband of owner of the Vehicle No.MP09-GE-2021. (v) Shri Ramesh Chandra Mehta, Ex-owner of Truck No.MP09D7415. (4) Statement of Shri Ajay Goel, Director of VCRM Petro Chemical Ltd. Statement of Ajay Goel, Director of VCRM Petrol Chemical Ltd., who although admitted that they have supplied furnace oil to JIJI, but stated that they have not issued invoice no.572 and 573 during the year 2010-2011. (5) Statements of Shri Praveen Tamhankar, Proprietor of Prerna Enterprises , in which, he, inter alia, stated that he was only a dummy proprietor and in actuality the transactions in Prerna Enterprises were conducted and controlled by Shri Gaurav Mungad and Shri Vaibhav Mungad, for which he has been promised some monetary compensation. (6) Shri Ravi Laddha, Proprietor of Ocean Impex in his statement accepted that they have issued invoices for sale of imported Aluminium Scrap to JIJI/KPPL and no goods have been actually sold under those invoices and the vehicle nos. in the invoices have been mentioned as per the instructions of Shri Gaurav Mungad or Shri Vaibhav Mungad. 88. Thus, we find that the case of Revenue is mainly based on the statements of the aforeme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom ICD, Pithampur or Mandideep have been examined either in the factory at the time of stuffing by the officers or at the port by the customs officers. Further, samples were also drawn. In the course of investigation, no inquiry has been made from such officers, who were involved in the supervision and sealing of the containers for export. (iii) The manufacturers appellants have made payments for the raw materials /inputs through regular banking channels and no irregularity has been found on this aspect. 90. Shri Praveen Tamhankar, Proprietor of Prerna Enterprises has admitted that he has signed several invoices and shipping bills. Further, the allegation of the Revenue as regards the forgery of signature of Shri Praveen Tamhankar by others, has not been established by the process known to law. 91. Thus, in the facts of the present case, the examination of the raw materials suppliers, transporters and the proprietors of the Prerna Enterprises and Ocean Impex was essentially required as their statements are the main evidence relied upon by the Revenue. As the examination and cross examination have not been done in the course of the adjudication proceedings, in spite of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncome Tax Act and Companies Act. We further find that the Revenue has placed strong reliance on the facts that the proprietor /directors of the appellants companies are related or relatives, but such observations in itself do not prove the case of the Revenue in view of the fact of the manufacture and clearance of the finished goods is on payment of duty. Further, there is no allegation of any flow back of money after the payment has been made through banking channels. Further, the appellant manufacturers have exported their goods and have received the export proceeds, although at some delay and have produced deficit BRCs, which have been annexed in the appeal paper books. 96. So far as the dispute of quantitative details of the manufacture and sales is concerned, we find that such allegations are vague and not based on any cogent evidence or standard input out norms. We also find that the allegation of the Revenue as regards the inflation of sale price of the finished goods is also vague. The Revenue has only disputed the sale price with respect to the metal price of Aluminum on LME, which is only a bald allegation. Sale price are the result of market force including demand and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
