TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (11) TMI 403
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0,80,000/- on M/s. Varun Impex under Rule 26 and 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2. The fact of the case is that on the basis of intelligence gathered by the officers of Central Excise, Division A, Mumbai I Commissionerate, it came to notice that one M/s. Singh Inc. has been registered as merchant manufacturer (deemed manufacturer) in terms of Rule 9 read with Rule 12B (as in force till 8/7/2004)) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 have taken and utilised Cenvat credit on the basis of fake and bogus input invoices. M/s. Singh Inc. used to take Cenvat credit on the bogus invoices, without receipt of the inputs and show as manufacturer supplier of goods, used to issue Central Excise invoices showing supply the goods to certain merchant exporters including present appellants M/s. Vinayak Exim, M/s. Ashirwad Fashion, M/s. Sheetal Exports and M/s. Varun Impex. Some of the appellants namely M/s. Vinayak Exim, M/s. Ashirwad Fashion and M/s. Sheetal Exports filed rebate claim towards duty shown to have been paid in the invoices to M/s. Singh Inc. However, subsequently withdrawn the rebate application during the proceedings of these cases. M/s. Varun Impex have not filed application f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rchase of excisable goods it is beyond the imagination that the buyer of the excisable goods can anywhere have the knowledge if any fraud is committed by the supplier. The appellants have bonafidely purchased the goods from M/s. Singh Inc. and paid against the said purchases the value along with excise duty. The goods so purchased were exported and they intended to claim the rebate of the duty so paid. It is pertinent to submits that appellants have paid entire amount of invoice raised by M/s. Singh Inc. and excise duty which paid along with value of the goods were claimed as rebate. In such situation there is no additional gain to the appellant, rather in the present case though the excise duty amount was recovered by M/s. Singh Inc. but due to this case they lost the amount of rebate. In the entire investigation no evidence was produced that there is any cash transaction between appellant and M/s. Singh Inc. which can establish the fake nature of transaction. The investigation did not dispute about the receipt of the goods at port of exports and payment there against made by the appellants to M/s. Singh Inc. If this fact is not disputed then how appellants can be party to the fra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, Chandigarh-I Vs. Mini Steel Traders [2014(309) ELT 404(P&H)] (b) Commissioner of C. Ex. & S.T. Chandigarh I Vs. Asim Enterprises [2015(328) ELT 658(Tri. Del)] (c) Sahu Refrigeration Industries Ltd Vs. Commr. Of Ex. & S.T. Delhi-I [2015(330) ELT 587 (Tri. Del)] (d) Duggar Fibre Pvt Ltd. Vs. Commr. Of Ex &S.T. Delhi [2015(322) ELT 763(Tri. Del)] (e) Basudev Garg Vs. Commissioner of Customs [2013(294) ELT 353(Del.)] (f) Prem Prakash Raj Kumar Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi [2013(297) ELT 246(Tri. Del)] (g) Solid Containers Ltd Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. Thane-I [2010(262) ELT 269(Tri. Mum)] (h) Kamlesh Kumar Goel Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. Thane-II [2008(223) ELT 65(Tri. Mum)] 4. On the other hand, Shri. Ashutosh Nath, Ld. Asstt. Commissioner(A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He submits that as of now it has been established that M/s. Singh Inc. have defrauded the government exchequer by availing fraudulent cenvat credit and utilising the same showing payment of duty by issuing Central Excise invoice to the appellants. It is established that M/s. Singh Inc. has neither received input nor supplied the go....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... but if the goods were supplied, even though, some different goods the present appellants cannot know fraud committed by the M/s. Singh Inc. In normal course of transaction of excisable goods, the buyer is concerned about the nature and quality of the goods for which he placed order and invoice issued there for. If the buyer is receiving the goods along with invoices thereafter it is not obligatory on the buyer to find out whether goods actually manufactured by the supplier or whether duty was paid genuinely or otherwise, therefore in my view when the appellants have purchased the goods bonafidely and paid there for, no doubt can arise at the end of the appellants as buyers. It is only on investigation, the appellant came to know that their supplier M/s. Singh Inc. has committed fraud in availing Cenvat credit and utilising the same. The appellants have forgone their rebate claim thereafter. The person can be penalise only when either he colluded with fraudulent person or atleast he knows about the fraud in the transaction made with him. In the present case it was established that the supply of goods under the cover of invoice and ARE1 made to the appellant by manipulating the same....