9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 633X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble goods without physical delivery of the goods. Pursuant to said information, DGCEI conducted searches of various premises on 06.12.2012 and found that said Shri Amit Gupta was operating nine Central Excise registered dealer companies, located at Delhi, Gurgoan and Jaipur as listed in the impugned show cause notice which were engaged in trading of non ferrous metals and were passing on the inadmissible Cenvat credit to the manufacturers/other registered dealers on the invoices issued by said nine registered dealers companies. The said nine companies are detailed in impugned SCN as follows: Sl. No. Name of Registered Trading firm Registration No. (1) (2) (3) 1 M/s. Brilliant Metals Pvt.Ltd.,A-7/1, Block, Jhilmil Industrial Area, G.T.Road, Shahdara, Delhi (BMPL, Delhi) AAECB8006GED002 2 M/s.Forward Minerals & Metal Pvt.Ltd., F-1951, Basement, DSIDC, Narela, Delhi-40 (FMMPL, Delhi) AABCF4318AED001 3 M/s.Progressive Alloys (India) Pvt.Ltd.,408, Azadpur Commercial Complex, Azadpur, Delhi-110033 (PAIPL) AAGCP1584MED001 4 M/s.Unanti Alloys Pvt.Ltd.,Behrampur Road, Opp.Haryana Roadways Workshop, Gurgoan (Haryana)-122001 (M/s.UAPL, Gurgaon) AABCU1531EED003 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... posing recovery of cenvat credit amounting to Rs.83,54,316/- alleging it to have been availed fraudulently without actual receipt of goods during the period from 17.02.2012 to 01.03.2012. The proportionate interest and appropriate penalty on both the appellants i.e. firm as well as proprietor Shri Anil Goel were proposed by the said show cause notice. The proposal has been confirmed vide Order-in-Original No.ALW-EXCUS-Addl.Comm.07/17-18 dated 30.11.2017. The appeal against the said order has been rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order-in-Appeal 75-85 (SM)CE/JPR/2019 dated 29.03.2019. Being aggrieved, the appellants are before this Tribunal. 6. We have heard Shri L.B.Yadav and Shri Jitendra Singh, learned Counsels for the appellants and Shri Rakesh Agarwal, Authorised Representative for the respondent. 7. That the present case has been initiated based on the statement of Shri Amit Gupta and on the basis of documents recovered during the searches conducted in the various premises pertaining to said Amit Gupta. It is impressed upon that no search was ever conducted in the premises of M/s.Unanti Alloys Pvt.Ltd., Jaipur from whom the appellants were purchasing the copp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal Order of this Tribunal in the case of M/s.Multi Metal, High Court has admitted the said appeal. It is submitted that earlier decision of this Tribunal cannot be the precedent when it relates to other case which is not the subject matter of appeal. Finally submitting that M/s.Unanti Alloys, the supplier of the appellants had opted for settlement scheme/SVLDR and had not challenged imposition of penalty upon the appellants, present both the appeals are prayed to be dismissed. 10. Having heard rival contentions and perusing the entire record including earlier orders of this Tribunal as have been brought to the notice by the appellant, we observe and hold as follows: 11. The present case has originated out of the same set of investigation including searches in various premises of Amit Gupta, proprietor of M/s. Progressive Alloys, the documents recovered and the statement of Shri Sanjeev Magoo, the transporter, as were the facts in various other appeals, brought to notice by the appellants. The present appellants are alleged to have been the vendor of M/s.Unanti Alloys. The cenvat credit availed by them on the invoices received from M/s.Unanti Alloys for purchase of copper, rod sc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lsify the contents of the said register. The register being documentary evidence should have precedence over the statement relied upon by the department. This has already been dealt with by the Tribunal in another appeal of the vendor of present appellants i.e. M/s.Unanti Alloys Pvt.Ltd. Para 16 of Final Order No.52089-52093/2021 dated 22.12.2021 ( in the case of M/s.Unanti Alloys Pvt.Ltd.) reads as under: "16. Law has been settled that mere statements are not sufficient to prove clandestine removal. Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Continental Cement Co. Vs. Union of India reported as 2014 (309) ELT 411 (Allahabad) had earlier laid down the criteria of investigation to prove the allegation of clandestine sale in following words: "Further, unless there is clinching evidence of the nature of purchase of raw materials, use of electricity, sale of final products, clandestine removals, the mode and flow back of funds, demands cannot be confirmed solely on the basis of presumptions and assumptions. Clandestine removal is a serious charge against the manufacturer, which is required to be discharged by the Revenue by production of sufficient and tangible evidence. On car ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
