TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (9) TMI 241
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ting the same? 2. Whether the Tribunal below is right in holding that the demand in question is not barred by limitation in the facts of the present case and that the larger period of limitation is applicable? 3. Whether the Tribunal below is right in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant?" 2. The assessee/appellant herein are manufacturers of Iron Castings falling under the CETH 7325 10 00. It is seen from the order passed by the adjudicating officer, based on the intelligence gathered, it was found that the assessee had availed the Cenvat Credit fraudulently passed on by the Iron & Steel registered dealers. 3. The Officers attached to the Headquarter Preventive unit visited the premises of the assessee; they....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....p;Thus, on an examination of the persons concerned, the Revenue viewed that the first stage dealers and manufacturers supplied only wires and coils; the verification of the parent document showed that M/s. Leadsman Enterprises/M/s. Sri Amman Steels had earned credits on account of wire/coil purchase only; there were no evidence of purchase of scrap on payment of duty by them; thus, the purchase of scrap by the assessee appeared to be non-duty paid item and the documents with wrong details appeared to be fraudulent ones. Based on the sale and purchase documents, the adjudicating authority found that the sale and purchase documents of M/s. Leadsman Enterprises/M/s. Sri Amman Steels showed that they had not sold the Cenvat availed good to the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ainted invoices, thus, taking Cenvat credit without receipt of duty paid inputs, this tantamounted to claiming illegal advantage of the scheme, thus, the fraud vitiated the transaction. 6. Aggrieved by that, the assessee went on further appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter called as the "CESTAT"). On consideration of the materials, the CESTAT passed the final order noticing that the assessee had not appeared at all to substantiate the case The CESTAT went into the records available and passed the order. Paragraph 2 of the CESTAT's order refers to the various dates, on which, the case was posted and the assessee asked for adjournment. Finally, the CESTAT passed the order on 1-3-2013 (signed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g for the assessee relied on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2013-TIOL-41-SC-CX - 2013 (295) E.L.T. 177 (S.C.) in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Jalandhar v. M/s. Kay Kay Industries as well as the decision of the CEGAT, reported in 2003 (153) E.L.T. 114 (Tri. - Del.) in the case of R.S. Industries v. Commissioner of C.Ex., New Delhi., and the decision of the Delhi High Court reported in 2008 (228) E.L.T. 347 (Del.) in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-II v. R.S. Industries and submitted that the assessee had taken all reasonable steps to verify that the inputs purchased by them were cleared on payment of duty; the mere act of suppliers selling the non-duty paid scrap as though they are duty suffere....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... no dispute that the declaration was given by the manufacturer of the inputs indicating that the excise duty had been paid on the said inputs under the Central Excise Act. The Apex Court pointed out that there was no dispute that the said inputs were directly supplied by the manufacturer and not from the market. From the factual matrix that the assessee's only allegation it was found that the supplier of the inputs had not discharged full duty liable for the period covered under the invoices; the Supreme Court, observed that the lapse of the seller was different and not a condition or rather a pre-condition postulated-in the notification. Thus, the Supreme Court affirmed the order of the High Court deleting the penalty and withdrawal of the....