TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 1375
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t intention to pass on cenvat credit to DAPL, although there was no movement of MS ingots. (ii) that no lorry weigh bills were issued for above transaction of manufacture of raw materials and finished goods as well. (iii) three-wheeled vehicles and vehicle of lesser laden weight among other vehicles were indicated as vehicles used for the transportation, hence transactions were dummy and were only paper transactions for fraudulently availing cenvat credit. Similarly, it appeared that SAPL had sent the goods to M/s. Bhulwalka Alloy Steel Industries Ltd. (herein after referred to as BAPL, appellant in E/582/2009) for conversion into re-rolled products of such MS channels and MS angles. However, SAPL had directed BAPL to deliver the goods to DAPL apparently citing pressure of immediate supply and supply then back to SAPL to meet their immediate demand. Here also, it appeared to the department that assessee, DAPL had only procured cenvatable invoices without movement of goods and hence cenvat credit availed on the basis of those documents was inadmissible. Accordingly, show cause notice dt. 16.4.2008 was issued on all these assessees, inter alia proposing denial of cenvat credit of Rs.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the appellant and clearance of rolled product back to SAPL after conversion. (v) Department had not disputed the removal of goods on payment of duty to SAPL and subsequent treatment by SAPL of such goods. Without causing pre-judice to any of the submissions made by the appellant even if it is presumed for sake of argument that the appellant had not received any goods from SAPL then the department should have disputed the clearance rolled product by the appellant company to SAPL on payment of duty. The department is disputing only one leg of the transaction which pertains to receipt of material and availment of credit but not disputing the second leg of the transaction of clearance of goods on payment of duty. (vi) The department investigation is silent on the aspect that if the appellant had not received the MS Ingots then from where the re-rolled products which were cleared to SAPL were manufactured from. There is not an iota of evidence against the appellant as to how the goods cleared got manufactured by the appellant if he had not received MS Ingots from M/s.SAPL. (vii) In all cases freight had been paid by the supplier SAPL. DAPL had neither paid any freight for inwa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on the ground that SAPL was not found existent 27, 1st Floor, MRR Lane, Bangalore on visit of departmental officers instead M/s.Milange Footware was found. Director of SAPL had already explained that they have shifted their depot office from 27, 1st Floor, MRR Lane, Bangalore to 480, 1st Floor, K.H.B.Colony, 5th Block, Koramangala, Bangalore 560 095 on account of ownership dispute. Since, BSIL had been allowed cenvat credit by the Hon'ble CESTAT, Bangalore and the said order had been upheld by the Karnataka High Court as reported in 2012 (277) ELT 153 (Kar), therefore, there is no ground for denial of cenvat credit to the appellant when the supplier is same in that case and in the case of appellant and the reason for denial is also same. (xii) Bonafide purchaser is not liable for irregularity committed by the dealer supplier. In this regard, he relied on the following case laws : a. CCS Vs Juhi Alloys Ltd. [2014 (302) ELT 487 (All.)] b. CCE Vs Motabhai Iron and Steel Industries [2015 (316) ELT 374 (Guj.)] c. CCE Vs Tata Motors Ltd [2013 (294) ELT 394 (Jhar.])] d. SRF Limited Vs CCE [2000 (124) ELT 448 (Tri-Delhi)] e. Super Trading Company Vs CCE [2014 (299) E.L.T. 75 (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rule 13 if CCR, 2002 Rule 15 of CCR, 2004. The appellant submits that Rule 13/15 contains three / four sub-rules and the show cause notice must state as to under which sub-rule penalty is proposed on the appellant. Since, the impugned period under show cause notice is 15.10.2004 to 31.10.2004 and 15.11.2004 to 10.12.2004, the provisions of Rule 13 of CCR, 2002 are not applicable. Further, Rule 15 contains four clauses and the show cause notice must specify the specific clause to put the appellant on notice as to exact nature of contravention for which the appellant is liable. Reliance is placed on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Amrit Foods Vs CCE [2005 (190) ELT 433 (SC)]. Moreover, simultaneous penalty under Rule 15 and section 1AC cannot be invoked. Rule 15 should be read in conjunction with Section 11AC for imposition of equivalent penalty. Since, the extended period cannot be invoked there is no question of imposing the penalty under section 11AC. Further, the appellant had availed cenvat credit on the basis of valid duty paying documents. Thus, there is no contravention of any of the provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and therefore, penalty under Rule 15 is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the quantity of MS ingots shown in those invoices, without any actual sale or actual transportation of such raw material. 5. Heard both sides and have gone through the facts. 6.1 One major allegation of the department against the appellants herein is that the depot address shown in the invoices issued by SAPL was actually non-existent and that the entire exercise of issue of invoices was only a sham to show purported movement of raw materials to DAPL for fraudulent availment of cenvat credit. However, on the allegation of non-existent address, it is seen that para 4.2 of the impugned order refers to a letter dt. 29.03.2005 of the Superintendent of Central Excise, Basavangudi Range, Bangalore informing that SAPL Bangalore were not operating from No.27, 1st Floor, MRR Lane Bangalore 560 002 and that following their letter dt. 28.02.2005, SAPL had discontinued issue of cenvatable invoices from that address; that they had obtained new Central Excise Registration on 21.03.2005 in respect of premises at No.480, 1st Floor, KHB Colony, 5TH Block, Koramangala Bangalore 560 095. We thus note that it is not the case that SAPL did not have any depot at all in Bangalore, only omission is th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... establish non-receipt or shortage of raw materials at DAPL during their visit. So also, while it has been alleged that some of the vehicle numbers which pertained to vehicles which may not have been able to carry such quantity and weight of MS ingots, this appears to be only related to few incidents and not for all the vehicle numbers involved. In any case, the appellant has sought to explain that even these discrepancies have arisen due to clerical errors in transcribing the vehicle numbers in the concerned invoices. 7. We also note that apart from these unfounded evidences and uncorroborated facts which are the main basis of the SCN, the department has also, to a large extent, relied upon the statements of manufacturers of the appellants. However, the appellant s in their reply to the SCN have clarified that the concerned employees for example, Shri Ataur Rehman, Managing Director of SAPL was not supervising the day-to-day activities of the company and he might not have been fully aware of the facts of each and every dispatch or the said statement might have been obtained by force by the department. We also note that none of these persons whose statements were recorded have bee....