TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (6) TMI 390
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Government of India in purported exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 3. The First Respondent, who is a merchant exporter, filed two rebate claims in the office of the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise (Rebate), Mumbai-I, in the amount of Rs.1,07,989/and Rs.2,19,109/in respect of duty alleged to have been paid on goods manufactured by two firms by the name of Jai Krishna Prints and Jai Santoshi Tex Prints. The goods were exported through the port of Mumbai. On a scrutiny of the claims, the Department claims to have noticed that the First Respondent had submitted duty paying certificates in loose/open condition. A reference was accordingly made to the jurisdictional Centr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....st, financial control, or flowback of funds between the merchant exporter and the manufacturers/suppliers of goods. 4. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the Revisional Authority has proceeded on the basis that the case was covered by the decision in Shyam International, whereas, that is not the case. In the earlier case, the Revisional Authority had found that the transaction between the suppliers and the exporters was an arms length transaction, bonafide entered into between the two parties. As a matter of fact, the Revisional Authority had noted that if a charge in regard to want of bonafides had existed, then despite the purchase of goods by the merchant exporters on the basis of Central Excise document....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ice to show cause was issued to Jai Krishna Prints on the allegation that it had wrongly availed of Cenvat credit on Grey Fabrics, on the basis of invoices issued by Ganpati Textile which was found to be a bogus and fictitious firm. In the notice to show cause, reliance was placed on the statement of a partner of Jai Krishna Prints, stating that he had not received Grey Fabrics directly from the said dealer/manufacturer, but that he had received it through the exporter himself. The notice to show cause culminated in an order dated 28 April 2008 of the Joint Commissioner confirming the demand in respect of the Cenvat credit wrongly availed of, penalty and interest. The order noted that the admitted position was that the unit did job work and....