TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (9) TMI 860
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the jurisdiction of Thane-I Commissionerate were availing inadmissible CENVAT Credit on H.R. Trimmings & other secondary products on the strength of invoices issued by M/s. Jindal Iron & Steel Company Ltd. Vasind, Tarapur and M/s. Jindal Steel & Alloys Ltd. Vasind (hereinafter referred to as JISCO & JSAL respectively) without actually receiving the goods mentioned in the said invoices in their factories. On the basis of the intelligence gathered, it was revealed that M/s. Emkay Fastners Pvt. Ltd. were availing cenvat credit on the strength of invoices issued by M/s. JISCO and/or M/s. JSAL without actually receiving the goods mentioned in the said invoices in their factory premises. On further enquiry/investigation, it was extended to other parties including the transporters, the scrap dealers based at Viramgam, the officers of M/s. JISCO and M/s. JSAL, wire-drawing units based at Viramgam herein and during the course of their investigation, the statements of the various persons were recorded. The officers also recorded the statement of Shri Pradeep Mishra, Director of M/s. Emkay Fasteners Pvt. Ltd. on 13.2.2004, and Shri Suresh A Bundiwal, General Manager/Authorized Signatory of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Amar Ispat Pvt Ltd (supra) are same therefore this case also can be decided only on the basis of decisions in above referred 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 case 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 present case important fact has been established that all the invoices issued by M/s. Jindal Iron & Steel Co. Ltd and M/s. Jindal Steel & Alloys Ltd issued in respect of HRT scrap and addressed to the M/s. Emkay Fasteners Pvt. Ltd but goods were delivered to Viramgam based parties. Thus appellant availed Cenvat credit without receipt of the material. Thus appellant have availed fraudulent Cenvat credit. Following the decision of this Tribunal in the case 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'....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cord etc. as is evident from para 93 of the impugned order. These include, - (i) -"(v) From certified copies of Annexure-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. (i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as held by this 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, A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... common and there the statements given by the appellants were more to the point. We have absolutely no hesitation whatsoever in holding that the appellant No. 3, 4 and 5 are Viramgam based brokers/traders who in fact were participating in the auction bidding process either themselves or through brokers based in Mumbai and were purchasing the HR trimmings from manufacturers such as Jindals in this case. Later on. the HR trimmings were going to Viramgam. Since the invoices of such HR trimmings were of no use to them, they were trading the invoices through brokers based in Mumbai who in turn were locating the furnace units who could fraudulently avail the credit based on such invoices. The cash amount of HR trimmings being sent through angadia or other services from Viramgam and nearby area and were being converted into Bank Draft etc. through banking channels either by such. brokers or by manufacturers of ingots or was used in cash to purchase bazaari scrap/scavenger scrap. In view of the above position, we have no hesitation in holding that the demand and penalty imposed on the main appellant is correct and the appeal of the main appellant is, therefore, dismissed. Appellant's c....