TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 937X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /s. Jain Ispat has been the dealer of scrap of M/s. ASL. Their premises also were got searched. The appellants defence against M/s. Jain Ispat has been discussed by the Adjudicating Authority in para 16 of order under challenge whereof it has been appreciated that the lorry receipts recovered from M/s. Jai Ispat premises were fabricated as the name of transport company and the telephone numbers mentioned in those lorry receipts were found bogus. Based upon the said evidence only the adjudicating authority had held that objective of the invoices issued by M/s. Jain Ispat and the said false lorry receipts were intended to assist M/s. ASL to avail the CENVAT credit on the goods fraudulently. Coming to the evidence against M/s. K G Ispat Ltd., admittedly no search was conducted in the premises of M/s. K G Ispat. Though the documents recovered from M/s. ASL are showing receipt of inputs under the invoices issued by M/s. K G Ispat during the period 2.5.2008 to 31.08.2008 but the documents recovered from M/s. ASL could not be corroborated from any of the documents from M/s. K G Ispat as no recovery from their premises was made by the department - No doubt the Director of M/s. ASL while ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ASL were wrongly availing the CENVAT credit on the strength of aforesaid invoices issued by M/s. Jain Ispat without actually receiving the inputs of these invoices in their factory. The search got conducted in the premises of M/s. ASL on 29.9.2008 observing the shortage of 177.855 MT of MS ingots in their factory than the recorded balance shown in their RG I record. Also the physical shortage of 393.995 MT of inputs than the stock shown in their form IV record was found. It is thereafter that the Show Cause Notice No. 3210 dated 06.09.2010 was issued with the allegations that M/s. ASL during the period 25.6.2008 to 24.09.2008 have clandestinely cleared 1463.11 MT of MS ingots from their factory without issue of Central Excise invoices and without payment of Central Excise duty leviable thereupon. It was alleged that M/s. ASL have availed the CENVAT Credit on their inputs for which the invoices were issued by both the appellants herein i.e. M/s. K. G. Ispat and M/s. Jain Ispat, the registered dealers. Accordingly vide the Show Cause Notice Central Excise duty amounting to ₹ 69,13,299/- along with the CENVAT Credit amounting to ₹ 76,20,922/- was proposed to be recover ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d party evidence cannot be relied upon for imposing penalty upon M/s. K G Ispat. In view of the above submissions, the order under challenge is prayed to be set aside and appeals are prayed to be allowed. 4. Learned Counsel has laid emphasis upon the decision of Hon ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Continental Cement vs. Union of India reported as [2014 (309) E.L.T. 411 (All.)] to prove that invoices were issued without transportation of goods. 5. To rebut these submissions learned Departmental Representative has laid emphasis upon para 19, 20 and 22 of the Order-in-Original / Order under challenge where in the cross examination of the transporter as was conducted at the direction of Order of this Tribunal dated 21.2.2017 has been appreciated, where outrightly they had denied to have transported the imports/ raw material from M/s. K G Ispat and M/s. Jain Ispat to M/s. ASL. The earlier invoices were showing sale of invoices to M/s. ASL which were recovered from the premises of Jain ispat. These were invoices issued by both the appeals based whereupon M/s. ASL have availing the CENVAT credit on the invoices. The demand thereof has already been confirmed against M/s. ASL. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... umstances, the reliance on the case Continental Cement (supra) is not at all sustainable. 7. Coming to the case of M/s. Jain Ispat, there is no denial that M/s. Jain Ispat has been the dealer of scrap of M/s. ASL. Their premises also were got searched. The appellants defence against M/s. Jain Ispat has been discussed by the Adjudicating Authority in para 16 of order under challenge whereof it has been appreciated that the lorry receipts recovered from M/s. Jai Ispat premises were fabricated as the name of transport company and the telephone numbers mentioned in those lorry receipts were found bogus. Based upon the said evidence only the adjudicating authority had held that objective of the invoices issued by M/s. Jain Ispat and the said false lorry receipts were intended to assist M/s. ASL to avail the CENVAT credit on the goods fraudulently. 8. The Transporter of M/s. G L Roadlines, M/s. Annapurna Roadlines, have clearly denied the transportation of goods of M/s. Jain Ispat through their roadlines to M/s. ASL. The appellants have not produced any one for cross examination except mere reliance upon the cross examination of Shri Lal Singh Kourav, proprietor of M/s. Annapurna R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
