2009 (4) TMI 583

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... participation in the business for procurement of raw material and export. He was looking the manufacturing activities in Delhi. The appellant agrees that reply to show cause notice was not furnished and no appearance was caused while opportunity for personal hearing was granted. But fact is export was made. However, no export consideration was received. Therefore, once export was made, Cenvat credit is undeniable. 2.1 Learned DR submits that full proof case was brought out by Revenue making an investigation into the facts. Entire investigation has done and result thereof appears in paras 4 to 11 of the order of adjudication. He submits that on 4-3-2005, the investigating squad found that the appellants have availed/utilized fake an....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he total Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 52,91,720/- have been availed by M/s. R.U. Textiles on the basis of fake/bogus invoices. (c)     Superintendent, Central Excise, Range-IV, Division-IV, Surat-I Commissionerate had returned the Annexure-D in respect of M/s. Jolly Synthetics, M/s. Jolly Textiles and M/s. Navyug Fashion informing therein that these three firms were owned by one Sh. Naveen Aggarwal who had created these dummy firms and hence the Credit availed on the strength of 'invoices' issued by the above cited firms is inadmissible. Sh. Naveen Aggarwal had not filed Central Excise returns for the aforesaid firms from February, 2004 onwards, and hence, the credit passed on to M/s. Sarthak Exim Pvt. Ltd., New Del....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....usion of the learned Adjudicating Authority, exhibited by paras 23 to 26, we have noticed that Cenvat credit had been availed by the first Appellant M/s. Sarthak Exim Pvt. Ltd. in Appeal Case No. 197/09 and that was found to be with ulterior motive resulting in defrauding Revenue. The credit availed was for unjust enrichment by the appellants. The suppliers claimed to be supplier of inputs were found to be bogus. Statements recorded from different persons as appearing in Paras 8 to 11 of the impugned order remained unrebutted. The appellants failed to reply to show cause notice and preferred to forgo their right to do so. So also they did not cause appearance for hearing although four opportunities were granted as revealed from para 20 of t....