TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (10) TMI 36
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6-C.E., dated 1-3-1986. After post-July 1998, the appellants became a proprietory concern of M/s. Shree Stalco Engineering Pvt. Ltd. On 20-7-1988, the appellants premises were searched by the officers of the Central Excise in connection with alleged contraventions of the provisions of Rule 173B, Rule 173C, Rule 173F, Rule 173G(1) read with Rule 9(1), Rule 173G(2) read with Rule 52A, Rule 173G(4) read with Rules 53 and 226, Rule 57A, Rule 57B, Rule 57F(3) and Rule 57G(2) of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. In this connection various records such as personal ledger Account (PLA), RG 23 Part I and II Central Excise Challans, Central Excise GPI, files containing records of purchase made by the appellants, all records and documents pertaining to the bank transactions with various banks, records and documents in relation to the transport of goods to and from the appellants premises, all records pertaining to the receipt, issue and consumption of various consumables required to run the machineries installed at the appellants premises, files containing electricity consumption records etc. were taken over by conducting various panchanamas. 3.During the course of investigation st....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the said Act and credit balance of Central Excise duty as on 20-7-1988 totally amounting to Rs. 7,004.97 in their RG 23A Part II account should not be disallowed and recovered from them under Rule 57 of the said Rules and penalty ought not to be imposed on them under 52A and/or Rule 173Q and/or Rule 226 of the said Rules and also why land, building, plant, machinery, materials, etc., apart from proposing personal penalties. 5.By an order dated 21-1-1998 the Respondent confirmed all the allegations and demanded the Modvat credit as stated (supra) while imposing penalties. 6.Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants have preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and the tribunal by order dated 16-10-1998 remanded the matter back to the Commissioner for supply of the relied upon documents and giving reasonable opportunity of having access to copy them and to dispose of all the cases after personal hearing. In pursuance to the said order, the appellant's advocate and also on its own on numerous occasions written to the respondents and his subordinates to provide the documents and the appellants were asked to contact the office of the Senior Departmental Representative, Fort, M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d both on the Proprietor and the firm as held in case of Pragati Press v. CCE - 1994 (72) E.L.T. 620 which has been approved by the Hon'ble High Court in 1999 (113) E.L.T. A182 (S.C.). 8.The learned DR Shri Dewalwar, in his arguments support the impugned order passed by the Commissioner and further raised the following contentions : (i) The appellants never received Aluminium wire rods and never manufactured wires nor cleared the same. Only the Gate Passes have been recorded and issued. But they have received only documents i.e. invoices for movement of goods (Raw materials). This aspect has been proved from the various statements recorded including that of Mr. Pramod Kumar Taparia. The appellants have wrongly availed the Cenvat credit when they did not receive any goods. They have not used any raw material in the activity of manufacture of final product since they have not received raw material. This fact is proved from statements recorded by the officers concerned including that of Mr. Pramod Kumar Taparia. The invoices on which transport vehicles were shown with Numbers pertains to Rickshaws, Motor Cycles, Pick-up vans, Tankers and Private Buses etc. This information is ga....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....As a matter of fact, the noticees through their letter dated 21-8-2004 informed that they did not receive the Register RG 1, RG 23 Part I and II and PLA Register without which it is impossible to establish quantity-wise detail of duty taken credit for input and duty debited for output. They have also expressed that they have no intention to prolong the matter and once again requested for supply of documents. But the learned Commissioner (Adj.) came to conclusion basing on the report of Dy. Commissioner (Prev.) that the noticees have inspected the relevant records for 48 days throughout the years 1988 to 1991 and that the noticees are having the copies of the records relied upon in the Show Cause Notice. In this context, I am to observe that the Commissioner (Adj.) erred in coming to such conclusion without proper enquiry. He ought not to have been given a so much credence to the report of the Dy. Commissioner (Prev.), Mumbai, when in fact such records were not furnished. Mere fact of the absence of the Noticees on the date of personal hearing shows that their resentment futile exercise in attending the enquiry without valid defence for want of record. They visited the office of SDR....