AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (9) TMI 680
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e brief facts of the case are that M/s Uday Chemexpo, M/s. Vighnesh Chemicals and M/s Yogendra Chemical Industries have claimed rebate of Central Excise duty from Office of Maritime Commissioner, Raigad under Rule 18 of Central Excise (No.2) Rules, 2001 & Central Excise Rules, 2002 during the period August, 2002 to November, 2003 and the same have been sanctioned and paid to them during April, 2004 as under: Sr. No. Name of the Party No. of Rebate claims Amount of Rebate claim sanctioned (in Rs.) Cheque no. & Date by which the amount is paid 1. M/s Uday Chemexpo 8 36,95,552/- 886937/19.04.04 2. M/s Yogendra Chemical Industries 8 35,77,353/- 887116/19.04.04 3. M/s Vighnesh Chemicals 8 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....raud the Government. The investigations were initiated in the matter by Maritime Commissioner, Mumbai-I. 4. During the investigation into the money trail and the financial transactions from the bank accounts of first three noticee firms, with HSBC Bank, led to the account of M/s Shreeji Traders held with Progressive Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Kalbadevi Branch wherein the amount of Rs. 8,22,290/- was deposited on the strength of pay order issued by HSBC Bank. On scrutiny of the documents submitted by the bank it was revealed that M/s Shreeji Traders was a proprietary firm engaged in the trading of Iron and Steel articles, whose proprietor was Shri Hemant Patel having office at Masjid (East), Mumbai - 400 009. However, the records of the firm were ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Shri Gordia who subsequently returned the said acknowledged delivery challans to him and hence he was not aware of the whereabouts of the receiver. He did not have any corresponding purchase against the goods covered under sales bills issued to M/s Ruby Engineering and neither did he have any godown nor he maintained any physical inventory, as all of his purchases and sales were on transit basis. He admitted that he had issued sales bills to M/s Ruby Engineering without physical supply of the goods shown in the said bills, on request by Shri Gordia. He had taken demand draft of Rs. 8,22,290/- favouring M/s Shreeji Traders from Shri Rakesh and after deducting his commission, he had returned the balance amount in cash to him. He explained tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r deducting his commission and this transaction was adjusted by issuing bogus sales bill in the name of M/s Ruby Engineering. Shri Patel further admitted that the amount of Rs. 9,40,136/- was received from M/s Yogendra Chem. Industries. The said transactions was also effected through Shri Haresh Gordia and the amount in cash were handed over to Shri Haresh Gordia and the said cash amount was adjusted by issuing bogus sales bill in the name of M/s Encore Developers, Khopoli. Thereafter, Shri Hemant Patel, Proprietor of M/s Shreeji Traders, vide his letter dated 31.08.2007 tendered two cheques bearing No. 726666 and 726667 both dated 23.08.2007 for Rs. 10,00,000/- each, drawn on the Bharat Co-op Bank, Kandivali (W) Branch against his saving a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... favour of M/s Encore Developers, S.T. Road, Khopoli also were given to him by Shri Manohar (Sunil) Date. 6. Thereafter statement of Shri Manohar Vasudev Date was recorded on 23.08.2007, wherein he inter-alia stated that he knew Shri Haresh Gordia since long and shared a common office premises and was engaged in individual brokerage business in Iron and Steel market. He stated that he was in complete agreement with the facts and contents of the statement dated 23.08.2007 tendered by Shri Haresh Gordia. He has never transacted with company by name M/s Vignesh Chemicals, M/s Uday Chemxpo and M/s. Yogendra Chemicals. Shri Date could not offer any cogent explanation on being queried about the person behind the firms M/s Ruby Engineering and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ubmitted that the appellant had not issued any Central Excise invoices based upon which the rebate claims could have been sanctioned to the exporter & therefore they can't be penalised under Rule 26/27 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. He also argues that the invoices issued by the appellant have not been relied upon in the show cause notice issued to them & there is no corroborative evidence in the form of statements of exporters which could hold them liable for penalty in the matter. 8.3 Learned Advocate appearing for Shri Haresh Gordia have pleaded that the appellant is only a broker and has worked only for a commission. He also filed a written submission dated 24.06.2010 supported by case laws and pleaded that penalty under Rule 26 ....