9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 1037X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . issued for manufacturing of the said machines and parts thereof. An intelligence was gathered that the appellants are passing credit of duty by way of paper transaction without physically receiving any inputs and without carrying any manufacturing operation. During the course of investigation statement of one Shri Surendra Bahadur, Guard was recorded, who stated that the appellant has left the factory two months back and there was no machinery of the appellant in the said premises and all the machines which were lying there were of M/s. Saha Fabricators. Thereafter the statement of Shri Ratan Saha was recorded who stated that the appellant has taken the factory on rent from 01.07.2007 as per the agreement dated 01.06.2007. There was no machine and other tools. Electricity used by the appellant for manufacturing and other purposes were taken from CESC line. There was no other source of power etc.. There was no generator. The manufacturing shed covered with asbestos was 22 ft/15 ft., open shed covered with tin was 22 ft/30 ft. and there was two office rooms with total area 22 ft/9 ft.. The rest was open land and the machines were confined within the manufacturing shed. Thereafter, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Report dated 20.07.2007 of the department was also not shown any discrepancy. The appellant was also enjoying the electricity from the existing meters in the said premises as also the machines and tools installed therein. The appellant was procuring the inputs from different input suppliers/manufacturers/dealers viz. M/s. Adhunik Ispat Ltd., M/s. Mechanical Engineering Industries, M/s. Indian Wire & Steel Products (dealer), M/s. Steel & Metal Trading Company (Dealer), M/s. B.K.Steel Enterprises (Dealer), M/s. Devi Ispat (dealer),M/s. North East Forging (P) Ltd., East India Steel Corporation (dealer), M/s. Super Smelter Ltd. & Ors. The appellant had received the goods against Central Excise invoices and payments were made through account payee cheque. The appellant had also supplied the manufactured goods to different buyers/purchasers viz. M/s. Joy Balaji Industries Ltd., M/s. Gel Copper India (P) Ltd., M/s.Kejriwal Vyapaar (P) Ltd., M/s. Super Smelters Ltd., M/s. Ankit Metal & Power Ltd, M/s. Eastern Steel & Power Ltd., M/s. Corporate Ispate Alloys Ltd., M/s. Inertia Iron & Steel Pvt.Ltd. etc. against Central Excise invoices on payment of Central Excise duty. No dispute was rai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dit and on getting advance from the purchasers. The appellant was issued with a show cause noticed 24.08.2009 alleging wrongful availment of CENVAT Credit on the inputs and irregularly passing on the same to various consignees and demanded an amount of Rs.2,64,80,579/-. Proposition was also made in the said SCN for charging of interest and imposition of penalty on M/s. Devis Manufacturing Works. Separate proposition was also made for imposition of penalty on the proprietor under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. It appeared from the said SCN that department had undertaken investigation and found that the supplier of the goods had supplied the goods and appellant had received the same. Purchaser of the goods had also received the goods from the appellant and the goods were found installed in the factory premises of the buyers. Investigation was also made in respect of transportation. Though buyers had accepted the receipt of the goods, some transporters like M/s. Essel Transport was found to be not existing. M/s. Shree Shyam Roadways and Shri Laxmi Carriers denied having transporting any goods, M/s. Golden Roadways Corporation admitted in their statement of transportation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncellation of registration certificate and from those invoices and documents only, calculation chart has been prepared. It cannot be said that the appellant did not produce any document. During the course of giving statement by the appellant on 14.11.2008 it was specifically submitted that goods were received from the supplier of the goods and the goods were arranged to be transported through local transporter and who were not issuing any separate transport documents and payments were made by the appellant in cash to the lorrywalas on receiving the goods and the appellant had produced the vouchers. There is no rebuttal evidence. Regarding the procurement of the goods and/or purchase of the goods, department did not make any investigation. Department conducted only investigation in respect of the sale bills and therefore, there was no dispute in respect of the purchase bills and the appellant had received the goods after purchasing the goods and credit was taken correctly. (iv) The finding of the Ld.Commissioner in the Order denying the reports of the Commissionerate is wholly untenable in the eyes of law more particularly when transportation in respect of purchase, there was no d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dered the submissions. 8. We find that in this case the appellant has intimated suspension of their manufacturing activities vide letter dated 10.07.2008 and thereafter surrendered their registration on 01.08.2008 and whole of the investigation have been started thereafter. Moreover, the appellant has procured inputs from various dealers, manufacturers and suppliers and made payments through account payee cheques and investigation was conducted at their end and no inculpatory statement has been made by the supplier of the goods. Further, the appellant has supplied to various recipients of the goods whose investigation was also conducted at their end. They have also stated that they have received the goods in question and made the payment through account payee cheques. It is also evident on record that whatever Cenvat credit has been taken by the appellant, the appellant has utilized the same for payment of duty on the clearance of the goods and also paid sufficient amount of duty through PLA. 9. If it is presumed that the appellant was dealing with only for paper transaction and was not manufacturing any goods and clearing the same on payment of duty, the appellant could not have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
