9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 979X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. 2. The only issue, therefore, to be decided is: whether the said penalty sustained in the impugned order is correct or not? 3. Shri R. Balagopal, Learned Consultant, appeared for the appellant and Shri Arul C. Durairaj, Learned Superintendent, represented the Revenue. 4. Heard both sides and perused the documents placed on record. Even though the Advocate has filed Vakalatnama for M/s. Hitech Mineral Industries (Covai) Pvt. Ltd. as well, the Learned Advocate chose to argue only in respect of the appellants namely, Shri M.P. Kumar (Power of Attorney Holder of M/s. Santhi Steels), M/s. Santhi Steels and Shri P. Ganesh (Director-Commercial of M/s. Hitech Mineral Industries (Covai) Pvt. Ltd.). Hence, a separate order was passed in respect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... boration from the appellant. Some of the persons who were examined, like the Supervisor of M/s. Santhi Steels (appellant in Excise Appeal No. 42256 of 2013), corroborated the fact that the scrap in question received by M/s. Hitech Mineral Industries (Covai) Pvt. Ltd. were different from the scrap mentioned in the dealer invoices said to have been duty-paid scrap despatched from the godown of M/s. Santhi Steels, Coimbatore. 5.3 It is the case of the Revenue that :- * Invoices like Invoice No. 66 and 67 are second stage dealer invoices raised by one of the appellants (namely, M/s. Santhi Steels) indicating a sale of 15,060 kgs. And 15,000 kgs. of waste and scrap steel to M/s. Hitech Minerals; * The materials in question are purchased fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioned in the said invoices were paid to M/s. Santhi Steels, Coimbatore. When they were asked to explain / corroborate the discrepancies pointed out in the Show Cause Notice, the noticees took a stand that the evidences procured by the Revenue were vague and that no tangible or cogent evidences were adduced. A perusal of the Show Cause Notice reveals the quantification of the wrongfully availed CENVAT Credit of Rs.4,96,719/- during the years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09. The Adjudicating Authority, after considering the explanation offered by the appellant, however, vide Order-in-Original Sl. No. 08/2012 (A.C.) dated 31.12.2012 confirmed the demand as well as penalties against the noticees. The appellant preferred appeal before the First Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Industries (Covai) Pvt. Ltd. had wrongfully availed CENVAT Credit and that the other co-noticees had abetted in enabling M/s. Hitech Mineral Industries (Covai) Pvt. Ltd. to avail wrongful CENVAT Credit. Hence, the fact remains that M/s. Hitech Mineral Industries (Covai) Pvt. Ltd. had wrongfully availed CENVAT Credit and the appellant being "any person" who has abetted in making such documents that helped M/s. Hitech Mineral Industries (Covai) Pvt. Ltd. in availing such wrongful CENVAT Credit, cannot escape from the rigours of Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 6.1 Further, from the grounds of appeal, pleadings and arguments, I do not see any whisper about any retraction or any disputes as to their statements being not voluntary. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
