TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (8) TMI 1106
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They are availing Cenvat credit facility under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. On the basis of an intelligence developed by the officers of Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence, Mumbai Zonal Unit that M/s. SRMM, are availing irregular cenvat credits on the invoices issued by M/s. Ispat Industries Ltd., Kalmeshwar, Nagpur, a manufacturers, without actually receiving the material covered therein. 3. Department had initiated enquiry and investigations at various places like Raipur, Nagpur, Viramgam and Mumbai against the concerned transporters, M/s. Ispat Industries Limited, the Viramgam based dealers and the broker. The officers had, during the course of inquiry and investigation, recorded statements of various persons under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and withdrew various records under the panchanamas from various places. 4. In view of the above facts of the matters and after recording statements of the individuals involved in the conspiracy of passing on and availment of fra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... well as in present case. This Tribunal in all the above referred judgments have considered all common facts and evidences and came to conclusion that it was case of fraudulent passing of Cenvat credit without receipt of input by the beneficiary. In the case of Amar Ispat Pvt Ltd(supra) decisions the Tribunal held as under: 9. In the present case, the Revenue has raised the demand in respect of 403 invoices. Invoices are pertaining to HR trimmings. Revenue's case is that the said HR trimmings were transported from Jindals, Vasind/Tarapur to Viramgam based dealers/SSI units while the corresponding invoices were made in the name of the main appellant and the said invoices did not travel along with the goods, but only the invoices were received by the main appellant and they took credit on the basis of such invoices without receiving the HR trimmings. During the investigation, the main appellant and their officials including appellant No.2 were specifically asked whether they have any evidence whatsoever to prove that the goods viz. HR trimmings covered by the said invoices were transported to their factory and received in their factory. The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....O & M/s. JSAL were in fact transported the goods to various destinations in Gujarat. The vehicle numbers in the above 84 cases are appearing on the invoices issued by M/s. JISCO & M/s. JSAL in the name of M/s. AIPL." (iii) -"vii) Vehicle No. GJ 10 U 8157 and GJ 13 T 5226 owned by Shri Suresh Jayantilal Vyas, were appearing on ten invoices of M/s. JISCO & M/s. JSAL which was in fact indicating that the goods i.e. H.R. Trimmings & M.S. scrap were transported to Gujarat and not to the factory premises of M/s. AIPL. (iv) - "viii) From the records of M/s. Gayatri Transport Service it was found that the goods covered under invoice No. 12109063 dated 31/2003 of M/s. JISCO, Tarapur issued in favour of M/s. AIPL was transported to Satej in vehicle No. GJ 11 W 2910." (v) - "iv) Further from the records of M/s. Star Industries, Tarapur it was found that goods consigned to M/s. AIPL from M/s. JISCO, Vasind under invoice No. 1306515 dated 11.9.2003 and 1307516 dated 11.10.2003 through vehicle No. MCT 5101 and MCU 1051 respectively were in fact delivered to M/s. Star Industries, Tarapur." (vi) - "iii) Shri Janedrasingh Ramsingh Sodha residing at Jamnagar, Guja....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ansporters. Thus, even if the statements of the co-noticees are ignored, the demand will still hold good. If the main appellant would have produced some evidence to contradict Revenue's claim, we would perhaps be inclined to hold that denial of cross-examination has prejudiced their case. This Tribunal in the case of Jagdish Shanker Trivedi (supra) has observed as under:- "7. We first take up the contention that there was denial of principles of natural justice by not offering the witnesses for cross-examination by the appellant Ashish Kumar Chaurasia, despite his request that all witnesses should be examined. We have already noted that the appellant, Ashish Kumar Chaurasia had cross-examined two officers on 19-6-1995. It also transpires that summons were sent to Ram Avatar Singhal, Ram Kumar Mishra and Ram Bilas Mandal (driver), Jagdish Shanker Trivedi and Dilip Kumar Singhal, who refused to be cross-examined on the ground that they cannot be compelled to give incriminating evidence against themselves in view of their fundamental right guaranted by Article 20(3) of the Constitution under which no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against....