TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (10) TMI 1199
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ob work was duly filed by the appellant before the jurisdictional Central Excise authorities. The Appellant also appointed M/s MIL as consignment agent for sale of the finished goods. 2.1 The Appellant was later issued with the show cause notice dated 05.02.2010, alleging that the imported goods were not utilized for the specified purpose and the Appellant in connivance with M/s Amulya Exports and M/s Metalman Industries, made attempt to falsify the books of accounts by making illusory entries related to purported financial transactions. This has been allegedly done to establish that the conditions of licence were fulfilled by it. The goods were imported against non-transferable licence and the goods were under obligation not to be sold. M/s MIL has not utilized the goods in any further manufacturing activity. The licences were sold un-authorizely to M/s MIL by gaining a premium. The licences were illicitly used by M/s MIL to procure goods from M/s Amulya Exports. The goods were not used by the supporting manufacture i.e. M/s MIL in any further manufacturing activity for possible conversion into resultant product, in as much as, no records were produced by M/s MIL, showing receipt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of finished goods. Those documents were also submitted before the investigating officers during the investigation itself, forming part of relied upon documents. Further, vide letter dated 12.02.2007, addressed to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, SEZ, the appellant had requested for endorsement of name of job worker M/s MIL, since the goods were to be sent to them for job work and cenvat credit was to be availed by M/s MIL. He also submits that the accounts pertaining to transaction of job work, freight for transportation and sale of finished goods by M/s MIL on behalf of Appellant were also furnished to the officers and the said fact has not been denied by the Revenue. He submits that the allegations in the show cause notice and the findings recorded by the Adjudicating authority based upon such allegations are contrary. That at the one hand the Show cause notice and the impugned order states that the licences were sold by the Appellant and on the other hand, it states that the goods were diverted in the open market. That if the licences were sold by the Appellant, then in that case, there was no question of sale of goods in open market. The chain of correspondences and recor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by M/s MIL in capacity of consignment sale agent of Appellant. The sale price of goods manufactured from imported goods has not been doubted. There is no investigation that the licence or the goods were transferred. From the chain of correspondences, the facts of job work of imported goods and their sale is absolutely clear. From the list of vehicles furnished by M/s AEL for transportation of goods to M/s MIL, it transpires that each of the vehicle number was mentioned on delivery challan, which was seized from the Appellant. He submits that the following facts are undisputed: (i) the goods were imported against licences. (ii) The Show Cause Notice does not object to the fact that the sale of the goods is incorrect. (iii) There is no allegation that the goods after importation were diverted elsewhere or used for any other purpose. (iv) the records clearly shows that such transactions are not fake. (v) The sale Parties i.e sales details provided by M/s MIL to Appellant for sale are not fake. In that case it is no doubt about the fact that the actual user condition has been followed. (vi) The Appellant applied for endorsing Bill of Entry in name of MIL as job worker which is n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rs. 9700/- per MT was quiet unreasonable looking to the import value of Steel slabs of Rs. 16669/- per MT. The expression "Target Plus sale" entered in ledger account of the Appellant against the receipt of Rs. 85 lakhs from M/s MIL actually means sale of Target Plus licence. The imported goods could not be loaned, sold, transferred or disposed off in terms of policy. From the above fact, it is clear that the goods were sold in open market as such, without following the conditions/ provisions of TPS licence. M/s AEL have indulged in manipulation of accounts, which is evident from the financial flow back of money in the accounts of M/s MIL related to such transactions. M/s MIL and M/s AEL have facilitated in illicit diversion of goods as such, without undertaking any further processing thereupon and aided purported transactions through their accounts. 7. We have heard the ld. Counsel for both the sides and perused the records and written submissions filed by them. 8. We find that the demand has been confirmed and penalties imposed on the ground that the steel slabs under Target Plus licences were diverted in the open market by the Appellant and were not used for the intended purp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....duced as to how the alleged diversion of imported goods took place and how the consideration for such alleged diversion was received. 9. The transactions were duly recorded in books of accounts of the parties. The documents show that the ownership of goods right from purchase of Steel Slabs from M/s Amulya, till its conversion into sheets and sale to the buyers, has remained with the Appellant. The sale details made available by the Appellant has not been disputed. We also find that the rule for endorsement of name of supporting manufacturer on licence came into effect only from February‟ 2008, whereas the consignment was imported in 2006 - 07 and therefore, could not have been made applicable in the present case. Further, it is not disputed that the goods were not consigned to M/s MIL by the Appellant for undertaking the job work activities. The duty payment on converted goods manufactured from imported goods has not been disputed, nor is the clearances of such goods disputed. Revenue has not produced single instance that the imported goods were diverted elsewhere. There is no statement of any person or records from the Appellant or M/s MIL or M/s AEL, which can show that t....