TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 1479
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aged in the manufacture of various types of steel ingots and rolled products. The main inputs are M. S. Ingots and scrap. The department investigated the intelligence that some manufacturers are availing cenvat credit of Central Excise duty paid on inputs without actual receipt. The investigating agency, DGCEI, carried out investigation against M/s JRM Steels and M/s Bhushan Steels wherein it was revealed that several consignments of inputs for which invoices were issued by M/s Lauls Limited in favour of the above two companies were not received by them. It was further admitted by the above two companies that they did not receive the goods mentioned in the invoices. DGCEI investigated the allegation that the goods covered by these invoices ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nexure-B of the show cause notice which form the basis for the entire demand. In fact, the appellant approached the Hon'ble High Court through their Writ Petition No. 1063/2010 and obtained direction of Hon'ble High Court, for giving copies of the various bills relied upon by the Department. Even though, the Department undertook, before the Hon'ble High Court, to supply copies of the documents, none of the documents were provided to the appellant. In fact, the DGCEI has expressed inability to supply these documents inasmuch as the documents were not available with them. The adjudicating authority has recorded that copies of the bills cannot be given since the numbers of documents were indicated in the Annexure to the show cause notice on th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rused appeal record. 8. The entire case of the Revenue is based on the allegation that invoices were issued by M/s Lauls Limited in favour of certain assessees such as M/s JRM Steels and M/s Bhushan Steels for supply of M.S. Ingots. Investigations at M/s JRM Steels and M/s Bhushan Steels established that the goods covered under the invoices were not received by them. The case of the department is that such M.S. Ingots were diverted to the appellant. But search operations at the factory of the appellant did not result in recovery of any incriminatory documents. The total quantity of M.S. Ingots allegedly diverted to the appellant was 1775.84 MT. The Department proceeded with the investigation in an attempt to establish that this quantity ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uments not supplied to the assessee cannot be sustained. 10. The allegation of clandestine clearance is a very serious charge. The department is required to support such a charge with tangible evidence. CESTAT in the case of Arya Fibers Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Ahmedabad-II -2014 (311) ELT 529 (Tri. Ahmd.) has discussed the legal position regarding clandestine clearance which is summarised as under: "55. Mr. Hari Shankar, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant, has also drawn the attention of the Court to a decision of the CESTAT in Arya Fibres Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Ahmedabad-II 2014 (311) ELT 529 (Tri. Ahmd.) where the entire law concerning clandestine removal has been discussed and the legal position has been summarised as under: ....