TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (2) TMI 556
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. (3) I order confiscation of goods i.e. scrap seized on 22.01.99 valued at Rs. 34,651/_ under erstwhile Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 38A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. As the goods have been provisionally released on execution of B11 Bond for Rs. 34,651/- and cash security of Rs. 8,500/- and as the same are not available for confiscation, I order adjustment of cash security of Rs. 15,000/- towards redemption fine. (4) I impose penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on Ms. Shamia Iron and Scrap Trader, Bhosari, Pune under the provisions of Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 as applicable during the relevant period. (5) I refrain from imposing penalty on (a) M/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ondent are not the same goods as sold by the manufacturer of scrap. Therefore, the impugned order is required to be set aside and the matter be remanded back to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration to confirm the duty demand along with interest and penalties on the co-respondents. 4. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the CENVAT credit sought to be denied on the ground that the invoices under cover of which the scrap was procured by the respondent shows as CRCA Punching Scrap but the manufacturer of scrap has described the scrap as Scrap MS Offcuts. In fact, to clarify the terms MS Offcuts, the statement of Shri K Shivdasan, Operational Manager of M/s Bajaj Auto Ltd....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re is variation in price. 4.2 In the last he submits that from the various statements recorded during the course of investigation were considered by the adjudicating authority and thereafter he arrived at a conclusion by holding that the scrap which has been procured by the main respondent is the same scrap which has been sold by the manufacturer of scrap. In the circumstances, the impugned order is required to be upheld. 5. Considered the submissions and perused the records. 6. In this case, basically the denial of credit is based on various statements recorded during the course of investigation, secondly, the descriptions of the goods were not tallying with the invoices issued by the manufacturer of the scrap and the invoices aga....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vdasan, it is clear that till 1997, the goods in question are described as M.S. scrap and thereafter they are classified various types of M.S. Offcuts. These Offcuts either can be used for manufacture of components or can be used as melting scrap. Further, the statements of various first stage dealers were also recorded. In those statements, it has been clarified by the dealers that after procuring the goods in question from Bajaj Auto Ltd. or from other manufacturer, they used to segregate these goods and the goods which can be used for manufacture of components or reused were sold on higher price and the remaining were sold at lower price as CRCA melting scrap. 6.1 On perusal of the statements of the dealers as well as manufacturer of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....houdhary they used to purchase scrap from the open market and supply the same along with modvatable invoices but the Revenue has not produced any evidence on record that any scrap sold by M/s Shaima Iron & Scrap Traders is procured from the open market and the same has been covered under the modvatable invoices to the main respondent. In these circumstances, the allegation, in the absence of such a correlation being established, the fact of substitution of scrap is not sustainable. 6.3 The other reliance by the Revenue on the statement of Shri Japher Abdul Karim of JN Traders, the said statement has also not relied in full. In fact, Shri Japher Abdul Karim stated that we never supplied MS Offcuts, MS Scrap, Off cut, MS sheets to Pefco or....