2009 (8) TMI 909

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....edit Rules, 2002. 2. The facts of the case are that the respondent is a 2nd stage dealer is engaged in the trading of iron and steel scrap. On the basis of intelligence gathered by the investigating officials that M/s. Simandhar Steel Movers (I) Pvt. Ltd., (SSMIPL) and M/s. Simandhar Enterprises (SEPL), who were registered as first stage dealers, were issuing bogus invoices to different dealers of iron and steel scrap and manufacturing units of iron and steel goods on the basis of invoices issued by the units, which were non-existing at Alang, Bhavnagar. It was also revealed that many of the vehicle numbers under which the goods were purported to be transported were in nature of private cars, motor cycles, three wheelers, tankers, dumpers,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ds and, therefore, they were liable for penal action. Accordingly, the appellant ordered for revocation of Central Excise Registration issued to the respondent under Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with clause 7 of Notification No. 35/2001-C.E. (N.T.), dated 26-6-2001 as amended. 4. A penalty was also imposed on the respondent under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and Rule 13 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 read with Section 9 of Central Excise Act, 1944 for fraudulently passing on Cenvat Credit. A penalty was also imposed on Shri Prakash Chandrakant Jadhav, the Proprietor, under Rule 13 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 read with Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent filed an appeal befor....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....iolation of any policy condition. If the Insurance Company succeeds in establishing that there was breach of policy condition, then Claims Tribunal shall direct the insured to pay the amount to the insurer since the insurer had paid the amount to third party on the direction of Supreme Court. 6. The main contention of the SDR is that the SSMIPL and SEPL had never procured the physical goods but got only the fake invoices and also issued the invoices to the respondent on the strength of fake invoices. The respondent is not entitled to get any Cenvat credit. 7. On the other hand, the ld. Advocate for the respondent submits that the revenue has contended that the respondent has not received iron and steel scrap from SSMIPL and the registrati....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t on the duty paid invoices. He also filed the copy of the show cause cum-demand notice, which reflects that the only disputed invoice after co-relating is the Invoice No. 1657 dated 13-1-2003. But the revenue did not make any enquiries and investigation in the case of the respondent and arrived at a conclusion only on the basis of investigation made against the SSMIPL. He further placed reliance on the Amrit Foods v. CCE, U.P., 2005 (190) E.L.T. 433 (S.C.) wherein it was held that it is necessary for the assessee to be put on notice as to the exact nature of contravention for which the assessee was liable under the provisions of law. He also placed reliance on Haryana Steel Alloys v. CCE, New Delhi, 2002 (148) E.L.T. 377 (Tri.-Del.) wherei....