9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 1275X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e period from April 2016 to June 2017, on the basis of fake invoices without actual supply of goods was investigated by Anti Evasion Branch, CGST, Jaipur, Rajsthan, against M/s Ridhi Sidhi Enterprises, Jaipur and its Proprietor Sh. Nikit Kumar Mittal. M/s Ridhi Sidhi Enterprises, Jaipur has availed Cenvat credit on the basis of invoices issued by the following dealers/ manufacturers: S.No. Name of Dealer/Manufacture 1 Amaya Steel Pvt. Ltd., Bankura 2 Electrosteel Steels Ltd., Bokaro 3 Maa Chhinnmastika Cement &IspatPvt. Ltd., Ramgarh 4 Purulia Metal Casting Private Ltd, Purulia 5 Renu Raj Enterprises, Bokaro 6 Shree Ram Alloys & Ingots Pvt Ltd., Balidh 7 Sidhi Vinayak Steel, Bokaro 8 SupershaktiMetaliksPvt. Ltd., Durgapur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bsp; 500.89 Bhardwaj Steels P. Ltd. 7.38 2. Sidhi Vinayyak Metal & Salt Co. P. Ltd. 478.09 Allied India iron & Steel P. Ltd. 7.04 Total 6788.38 100 3. From the above, it was claimed that 85.58% of the scrap had originated from M/s Tata Steel. The detailed chart of purchase made from M/s Ridhi Sidhi Enterprises, Jaipur along with invoices - Annexure-A to the Appeal Memo. The appellants vide letter dated 09.07.2021 to the Superintendent (AE), CGST Commissionerate, Jodhpur (Annexure-B to the Appeal) submitted copies of invoices issued by M/s Ridhi Sidhi, along with respective transport documents, weighment slips, goods receipt notes, driving licence of driver of vehicle and ledger account of M/s Ridhi Sidhi Enterpri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l) of Shri Suraj Kumar Singh, the authorized signatory of M/s Renu Raj Enterprises (who supplied 93% of goods in question to M/s Ridhi Sidhi) categorically admitted that he allowed Shri Nikhit Mittal to operate M/s. Renu Raj Enterprises since August 2016 and the adjudicating authority also admitted the same at para 22.1(vi) of the impugned order. * Scrap originated from manufacturer M/s Tata Steel Ltd:- 85.58% of goods were originated from M/s Tata Steel Ltd., however, nothing was investigated at the end of M/s Tata Steel. * Scrap originated from manufacturer M/s Bhardwaj Steel P. Ltd.: - The scrap supplied by M/s Ridhi Sidhi to the appellant was not purchased by them directly from the manufacturer but from the 1st stage dealer namely ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida-I reported as 2020 (33) GSTL 419 (Tri.-All.) (ii) Kisco Castings India Ltd. Vs. Commr. Of C.Ex. & ST, Chandigarh - I reported as 2017 (347) (Tri.-Del.) (iii) Motabhai Iron & Steel Industries Vs. Commr. Of C. Ex., Ahmedabad-II reported as 2014 (302) ELT 69 (Tri.-Ahmd.) (iv) M/s. Arya Alloys Pvt Ltd Vs. Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax, Alwar reported as 2020-TIOL-740-CESTAT-DEL (v) P.P. Oxide Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Faridabad reported as 2015 (329) E.L.T. 16 (P&H) (vi) Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III Vs. Bharat Metal Inds reported as 2017 (346) ELT 308 (Tri.-Chan.) (vii) Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore Vs. Mittal Appliances Ltd. Reported as 2017 (345) E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as based its case on the evidence on record indicating M/s. Ridhi Sidhi/supplier of the appellant could not have the capacity to produce the goods as supplied, since they were not having actual receipt of raw material as number of their own suppliers had admitted that they are not dealing with them or had indicated that the raw material shown to have been supplied in the Books of Accounts of M/s. Ridhi Sidhi was not actually supplied. It was therefore clear that the raw material as accounted to have been supplied was not available with M/s. Ridhi Sidhi. They could not have in turn supplied to the appellants. He therefore reiterated the findings justifying the action of confirmation of the SCN. 6. In rebuttal, the learned Advocate indicated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of payments, proof of receipt of such goods in their premises and their output indicating that the goods were actually received as per accounts. They even have correctly argued that the denial of any cross examination of the testimonial evidences of third parties who stated that they did not supply raw material to M/s. Ridhi Sidhi, despite their request and reliance still having been placed by the department on such statements, makes the findings improper. They particularly relied upon on the case of Nidhi Auto Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida-I reported as 2020 (33) GSTL 419 (Tri.-All.) as being most akin in facts to their own situation and therefore the ratio in that case on the main point deserves to be accepted and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
