2016 (12) TMI 1378

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Steel & Alloys Ltd) from certain dealers without physically receiving the material covered therein. Investigation was conducted by the department and it was found that during the months of August to October, 2003, the appellants had availed Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 6,55,435/- without receiving the material into their factory. Enquiries were made with the owners of 4 trucks whose registration numbers were found to have been mentioned on these 29 invoices. The transporter who shown in the Central Excise invoices for transport of the goods admitted that even though he had lifted the material from the suppliers' premises he did not deliver the goods at the appellants' factory but diverted them to Viramgam in Gujarat and the traders in Viramgam who purchased the material which said to have been supplied to the appellant admitted that they had received the materials and made payments for the same and the transporter had delivered the materials covered under the invoices issued to the appellant in this case. The statements of both the Directors viz. Shri. C.M. Shah ad Shri. C.D. Lodaya were also recorded but they could not offer any satisfactory explanation regarding the receipt of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ntral excise invoices, goods and it relates with change of billing address, as no investigation was carried out at the place of M/s. Jindal Iron & Steel Co. Ltd, the allegations of all sort made against the appellants becomes unfounded and baseless. (c) It is observed by the lower authorities that these manufacturers of Viramgam were supplied goods against fictitious commercial bills, in this regards Ld. Counsel contention is that neither a copy of the fictitious commercial bill was placed on record nor the investigating authorities had reached to the premises of the SSI manufacturers therefore it would be highly objectionable proposition, if someone says that the goods were not received by the appellants. (d) Ld. Counsel submits that department has not discharged its burden as department has not produced any evidence regarding the procurement of market scrap. He submits that It is a blanket statement that goods were not received and only documents were received. (e) He further submits that investigation carried out shows that only 14% invoices were investigated, that is, four in numbers which 14% of the total invoices and therefore the show cause notice ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....erred case as no much discussion is warranted as all the evidences which are almost common in case cited above as well as in present case. This Tribunal in of Amar Ispat Pvt Ltd(supra) has 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) decision important fact has been established that all the invoices issued by M/s. Jindal Iron & Steel Co. Ltd were issued in respect of scrap and addressed to the MITC Rolling Mills Pvt Ltd but goods were delivered to Viramgam based parties, are fake and without receipt and supply of the material. Thus appellant have availed passed an fraudulent Cenvat credit. Therefore following the decisions of this Tribunal in the cases of Amar Ispat Pvt Ltd(supra), the impugned order sustains. The relevant portion of said order is reproduced below: 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 w....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....xure-1 and Annexure-2 sent by Sales Tax Officer of Bhilad Check post it was found that vehicle No. GJ 10 U 7985 carrying H.R. Trimmings had passed through the check post to Gujarat on 14.12.2002. The said vehicle number is appearing on invoice No. 1207253 dated 14.12.2002 issued by M/s. JSAL favouring M/s. AIPL It shows that the H.R. Trimmings consigned to M/s. AIPL on 14.12.2002 were in fact transported to Gujarat." (ii) -"vi) From the records of M/s. New Shri Swaminarayan Transport it was found that 84 vehicles consigned to M/s. AIPL from M/s. JISCO & 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....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Tribunal in the case of Maya Mahal Industies (supra) as also in the case of Jagdish Shanker Trivedi (supra) read with Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, we are of the view that no prejudice has been caused to the appellants, particularly keeping in view the fact that they" themselves did not produce a single evidence that the HR trimmings were transported to their factory and were received in their factory. They have also not given any explanation with reference to the records recovered from various transporters. 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 Chau....