2007 (9) TMI 640

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the manufacture of steel forging, and on the basis of five bogus invoices issued by the other appellant - M/s. H.B.R. Steel Corpn., had taken cenvat credit in contravention of the provisions of the Rules. When the Excise Officers visited the factory premises of the appellant on 7.2.2001, they found that there was no stock in their record or in the approved godown. Even earlier, when the officers had visited the premises on 14.9.2000, nineteen invoices showing receipt of duty paid material were recovered from them, and it was found that these were not accounted for in R.G.23D register. No explanation was given nor any corresponding sale invoice is shown by the proprietor of M/s. HBR. 3. On the basis of the material on record, the adjudic....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d and penalty justified. 5. The learned authorized representative of the Department, in absence of any one appearing for the appellant, has assisted fully in going through the relevant record. He contended that the decisions of the authorities below were based on cogent evidence which established that the dealer did not transport any goods to the manufacturer but issued modvatable documents which were fake and did not entitle the manufacturer to avail credit of the duty on the goods mentioned in such invoices. He pointed out that heavy consignments of steel could not have been transported on non-transport vehicles including two-wheelers, registration numbers of which were shown in the invoices without referring to the nature of the vehic....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l. He admitted that the entries were not made in R.G.23D register in respect of the goods received under those 19 invoices. According to him, on 12.9.2000 the material received by those invoices was removed in motor vehicles to another godown, which was not an approved one and its intimation was not given to the Department. The dealer M/s. H.B.R. had issued five invoices to the appellant Rajindra Forge Pvt. Ltd. in which mode of transport was shown by stating registration numbers of the vehicle. On enquiries made with various registration authorities, it was reported that the registration numbers were not of trucks but were of vehicles like mopeds, scooters etc., which were incapable of carrying huge material. Many truck owners denied havin....