TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (8) TMI 1167
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g in different iron and steels products, fraudulently passed on Cenvat Credit of Rs. 2,31,14,016/- on 8655.77 MT of pig iron to different furnace units and to one second stage dealer namely M/s Subodh Steels (appellant in this case). The investigations revealed that M/s Rohit Ispat had obtained registration fraudulently by submitting a fake and bogus rent deed by forging the signature of the landlord of the premises and issued Cenvatable invoices without having any office or godown to store the excisable goods and also did not maintain/produce the record before the investigation officers. The investigation also revealed that goods cleared by them to Noticee (M/s Rohit Ispat) were foundry grade II low manganese Pig Iron and that the end use of this type of pig iron was for the production of different types of casting articles in foundaries whereas Noticee M/s Rohit Ispat purportedly cleared these goods to furnaces. Hence, M/s Rohit Ispat along with M/s Subhodh Steels, Mandi Gobindgarh was involved in the issuance of wrong Cenvat invoices without actual receipt/storage/dispatch of pig iron. On that basis, the Ld Commissioner has concluded that M/s Subhodh Steels, Mandigobindgarh issu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he condition No. (i), of the Registration Certificate granted to the Dealer clearly mentions that the registration certificate is valid only for the premises and purposes specified in the application. Further, instruction (1) of the Form A-1 Registration Application, specifically states that changes in the information subsequent to the registration must be brought to the notice of the Central Excise Department and such changes should be indicated by ticking the relevant box at the top of the forms, providing the registration number and filling of only such information that has undergone change leaving the boxes for information not to be amended blank. The Dealer had not filed any amendment application implying that, there was no change in the information already submitted by them at the time of obtaining the registration. Since the Dealer did not exist at premises for which it had obtained the registration by fraud by submitting fake and bogus Rent Deed by forging the signatures of the Landlord Sh. Rajinder Parshad and it had not filed any amendment application regarding changes in the information already furnished by them, the Registration held by the Dealer have become null and v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... material fact would also amount to a fraud on the court [(see Gowrishankar v. Joshi Amha Shankar Family Trust, (1996) 3 SCC 310 and S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu s case (AIR 1994 S.C. 853)]. No judgment of a Court can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything and fraud vitiates all transactions known to the law of however high a degree of solemnity. When fraud is established that unravels all. [Ref : UOI v. Jain Shudh Vanaspati Ltd. - 1996 (86) E.L.T. 460 (S.C.) and in Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction Company (P) Ltd. - AIR 1996 SC 2005]. Any undue gain made at the cost of Revenue is to be restored back to the treasury since fraud committed against Revenue voids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal and DEPB scrip obtained playing fraud against the public authorities are non est. So also no Court in this country can allow any benefit of fraud to be enjoyed by anybody as is held by Apex Court in the case of Chengalvaraya Naidu reported in (1994) 1 SCC I : AIR 1994 SC 853. Ram Preeti Yadav v. U.P. Board High School and Inter Mediate Education (2003) 8 SCC 311." - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - -- "21. Fraud and justice do ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... granted after physical verification and the dealer was regularly filing the return showing purchase and sale of goods. It is argued that even if there was a fraud, it was on the part of that dealer and the appellants could not be penalized. I find that the assertion of the appellant that dealer was filing the regular returns is factually not correct. The appellants have also claimed that they have received goods along with invoices. When the dealer of the purportedly supplied goods himself has admitted that no goods were sent with their invoices and the said dealer s godown has been found to be non-existent on the basis of bogus or fake rent deed, in such a situation, the appellant s claim of actual receipt/storage/dispatch of pig iron is an impossibility and therefore fraudulent and hence liable to be penalized. The appellants have further argued that invocation of Rule 9(3) is contradictory to the offence being alleged on the part of the appellant, I find that the penalty has been proposed against the appellant under Rule 26(2) of the Central Excise Rules for issuing 5 Cenvat Credit invoices without actual receipt/storage/dispatch of pig iron. Hence, this contention of the appel....