TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (2) TMI 63
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has been imposed upon director of Appellant company Shri Amit Bhasin, Rs.1,00,000/- upon Shri Shivparasad Pathak, Supervisor of M/s Bajrang under Rule 209A Rule 209A of the erstwhile Rules, 1944 and Rule 13 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2001/2002. Also penalties of Rs.5,00,000/- on M/s Star Associates, Rs.1,00,000/- on M/s Vasmin Corporation and of Rs.3,00,000/- on M/s Motabhai Iron & Steel has been imposed under Rule 209A of the erstwhile Rules, 1944 and Rule 13 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2001/2002 on the ground that these firms have of issue of invoices by these firms without actual delivery of goods. 2. The demand has been confirmed against M/s Bajrang Castings on following counts: i) A demand of Rs.14,42,177/- is on the ground that M/s Star Associates has passed CENVAT credit without delivery of goods. That the proprietor of said concern Shri Arjundas Bhagchandani has stated that he had received only invoices from M/s Vasmin Corporation and on the basis of such bogus invoice has passed on the CENVAT credit to M/s Bajrang Castings. Further that some of the driver/ transporters has refused transport of such goods. Reliance is also placed upon the statement of Shri Amit Bhasin. i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion. 3. The Ld. Counsel appearing for M/s Bajrang Castings has filed detailed submission agitating the demands. He further submits as under: i) That the demand of Rs.14,42,177/- is not sustainable as M/s Star Associates are registered dealer under central excise. The goods were received under the cover of proper duty paying documents. The goods were transported under Form 40 of the Sales Tax and purchase tax was paid by the supplier. That they have received goods from M/s Star Associates and made payments. That even Shri Ajay Arjandas, proprietor of M/s Star Associates himself stated that the cheques were received from the Appellant and that the same were endorsed in favour of M/s Deepak Tradelinks. Shri Ajay Arjandas in his statement dt. 06.08.2003 stated that huge payment towards supply of goods for previous year is pending with the Appellant which itself confirms that there have been actual supply of Mild Steel Scrap by M/s Star Associates to the Appellant. The statement of Shri Ajay Arjandas itself is contradictory when he stated that he had no idea regarding the flowback of payment from M/s Vasmin Corporation to the Appellant. That when the goods were received from M/s ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oes not have any evidentiary value. It is more so in the light of the fact that the alleged recipients of goods i.e other units did not stated that invoices were issued in the name of the Appellant company and the goods were received by them. The blank statements without any evidence cannot be given any credence. Neither there is any evidence that the said third parties have made any payment to the supplier of the goods. Moreover the authorized persons of the units who are alleged to have received the goods cleared to the Appellant did not appeared for the cross examination. Thus there is no base to rely upon the statement of the said third parties. iii) The Ld. Counsel in reference to demand of Rs.2,57,347/- and Rs.5,83,537/- submits that the same is illegal as the same was made on the sole basis of statement of administrator of truck or transporters. The Ld. Counsel submits that the statements or records of administrator/ transporters being third party statements and suffers from lack of any corroboration and hence cannot be relied upon. That though reliance has been placed upon the statement of transporters but no investigation has been done to ascertain as to whether the goo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n duly recorded. The payment was made through regular banking channels and nothing discriminating has been found. That nothing contrary has been found from their unit and the third party statements and records i.e transporter cannot be relied upon. He relied upon the judgment of Tribunal in the case of Emmtex Synthetics Vs. CCE, New Delhi 2002 (147) ELT 649 to contend that uncorroborated uncross-examined and records of another person cannot be relied upon. He also relies upon the judgment of Tribunal New Delhi in the case of CCE, LUDHIANA Vs. PEE JAY INTERNATIONAL LTD 2010 (255) ELT 418 (TRI-DEL) to support his contention that when the statutory records maintained by them do not disclose absence of receipt of inputs in the factory and there is no cogent evidence of disposal elsewhere the credit cannot be denied. He also relies upon the judgment in the case of CCE, LUDHIANA Vs. PARMATMA SINGH JATINDER SINGH ALLOYS PVT. LTD. 2011 (266) ELT 67 (TRI-DEL) and MONARCH METALS P. LTD. Vs. CCE, AHMEDABAD 2010 (261) ELT 508 (TRI) to support his claim that the inputs were procured on payment and were duly recorded and therefore the credit cannot be denied. Also that statement of transporter c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tement. I find that only on the sole basis of statement of proprietor of M/s Star Associate is to the effect that that they have received only invoices from M/s Vasmin Corporation cannot be made a ground to deny credit to the Appellant Unit. I also find that it is a fact that M/s Star Associates were regularly supplying goods to the Appellant unit in the past also and on no occasion it was found that they have issued invoices without actual supply. I also find that statement of Shri Bhasin, director of the Appellant unit was recorded in respect of credit an amount of Rs.77,627/- said to be received by some other party. However the said statement was retracted by Shri Bhasin very next day. In such view of facts and my above views I do not find any reason to disallow credit of Rs.14,42,177/- to the Appellant. In respect of demand of Rs.5,42,938/-, I find that the demand is based upon the findings that the octroi receipt shows the delivery of the goods within the municipal limits of the city whereas the factory is situated outside municipal limits. Reliance is also placed upon the statement of the administrator of trucks who denied the transportation to M/s Bajrang and partner of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....railer/ Delivery Van or LGV/ Taxi and Passenger Van and thus the Appellant has availed irregular credit. I find that the goods were duly found to have recorded in the Appellants factory and were consumed in the production. The payment was made through banking channels which is not denied. No investigations have been made at the consignors end in this regard. In such case I do not find any reason to disallow the credit to the Appellant. I rely upon the judgment of M/s MONARCH METALS P. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., AHMEDABAD 2010 (261) E.L.T. 508 (Tri. - Ahmd.) wherein it was held that credit is available where the assessee produced ample evidence in shape of documentary record to prove that they had actually received inputs from first dealer and made payments through Demand Draft. A demand of Rs.13,62,301/- is against M/s Bajrang on the goods supplied by M/s Motabhai Iron & Steel, Viramgam based upon findings that the goods were not transported in the same vehicle by M/s Motabhai Iron & Steel in which the goods were received by them from M/s Bhushan Steel, Hoogly. It is also contended that one of the owners of the trucks used for transportation denied the transportation o....