TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (6) TMI 213
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pellants in Appeal No.E/1685/2009-EX[SM] and respondent in Appeal No.E/1825/2009-EX[SM] are not interested in prosecuting and defending their appeals. In that background, both the matter being very old, are taken up for a decision with the help of the Ld. A.R. 2. Ld. A.R. has taken the bench through overwhelming evidence documenting that there was no production at the end of M/s Annapurna Impex Pvt. Ltd. (M/s AIPL) and transaction between M/s A.K. Industries (M/s AKI) and M/s AIPL were bogus. 3. After hearing the Ld. A.R. and examining the records, I find that M/s A.K. Industries (M/s AKI), Ludhiana are registered for the manufacture of brass and copper alloys. They had taken cenvat credit of Rs. 25,67,069/- on the strength of invoice....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted the factory on 31.03.2005 and 29.07.2005 and on 18.05.2005, no furnace was found in the factory, not even a single piece of ingot was found and the production record was not maintained/available in the factory. During the visit to the factory on 31.03.2005, Sh. Parshotam Lal has stated that "the item namely copper ingot was never received in their unit nor it had ever been manufactured in their unit and that only copper rods were received from which copper wire was drawn and sold after enamelling." Similarly in his statement dated 29.07.2005 tendered under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, Sh. Parshotam Lal stated that "in the factory of M/s AIPL only winding wire of copper is manufactured which is used in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e impugned order are pertinent in this regard: "To verify the fact of transportation of goods, Sh. Pritam Singh, owner of vehicle no. PCH5276 in which some of the consignments shown to have been received by M/s AKI from M/s AIPL was examined during the investigation. He, in his statement, stated that he had not transported any goods either from M/s AIPL or from M/s AKI as his truck was not passed by the DTO due to a court case and the same remained parked and not put to use during the relevant period." 4.6 The department also examined the Sales Tax return of M/s AIPL for the period 01.04.2003 to 31.03.2004 and it was revealed that M/s AIPL had shown sales only to one M/s Ashoka Enterprises. 4.7 Another evidence which points t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssioner is that M/s AIPL had no melting furnace, the electricity consumption was not commensurate with production shown by the Excise Department and they did not manufacture any copper ingots/copper scrap on their on account. 4.10 The main defence of the appellant is that they had paid for the transaction by cheques and use of the material for the manufacture of final product has not been in dispute. They also contended that cross examination of Sh. Parshotam Lal was not allowed. 4.11 I find that given the clinching evidence that the goods were neither produced by the supplier nor transported to the buyer and other evidence mentioned above leaves little doubt that the goods were not received in the factory of M/s AKI. Further, in ligh....