2018 (2) TMI 1493
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eceipt of material. He argued that the appellant in the regular course of business availed credit on the goods supplied to them by M/s. Ispat Industries Ltd. and M/s. Uttam Galva Steels Ltd. These goods were supplied to the appellant by M/s. Gupta Agro Agency (GAA) (first stage dealer) through M/s. Central Dyes Industries (CDI), a bidder of M/s. Ispat Industries Ltd. and M/s. Uttam Galva Steels Ltd. Learned counsel argued that the appellant was bona fide recipient of goods from the first stage dealer and there is no evidence that these goods were not received by the appellant. Learned counsel argued that while investigation has been conducted in respect of the goods received through the first stage dealer, no investigation has been conducte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t motor vehicles, Bajaj pickup, Maruti Omni etc. Moreover, Shri Pradip R. Gupta, proprietor of GAA, in his statement dated 9.4.2010 stated that the transaction with CDI was through the broker Shri Darshitbhai and there was no physical delivery of goods shown under the Central Excise invoices. He stated that GAA would make a cheque/DD/RTGs to CDI for payment against such sales bills of CDI. Shri Darshitbhai would hand over cash equal to the value of goods shown in the bills + VAT amount and 30% central excise duty amount shown in the central excise invoices and retained 30% of the central excise duty element with CDI. He admitted that these were paper transactions. He further pointed out that the amount paid by manufacturer was returned in c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rpose lies on the appellant in terms of Rule 9(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. He further pointed out that the appellant has not given the names and addresses of the employees who were actually working for the appellant at the material time. Learned AR further pointed out that from the central excise invoices and commercial bills issued by GAA to the appellant is far less than even the assessable value of the goods i.e. base price at which IIL and UGSL has sold the goods to CDI/GAA. He pointed out that this clearly suggests that it was a paper transaction and nobody would sell goods on a regular basis at a loss. He particularly pointed out to the instances highlighted in para 21(i) and 21(ii) of the impugned order which show that the dealer ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ate on which the vehicle entered Check post In time Total Weight (Kgs.) 426162/20.12.06 AP26x1777 IIL, Dolvi 10.15.45 21.12.06 Bhilad 1.31.59 25180 10025/28.03.07 GJ11X9597 IIL, Kal 16.17.05 29.03.07 Songadh 225643 35900 9926/26.03.07 GJ10W7966 IIL, Kal 16.00.18 28.03.07 Songadh 124756 24793 Central Excise Invoice No. of M/s. IIL, Kalmeshwar & Dolvi CE Invoice date Quantity of HRT (MT) CENVAT duty (Rs.) Education Cess @ 2% S&H Edu. Cess @ 1% CENVAT Credit Entry No. & Date 9926 26.03.07 15.650 48953.00 979.00 490.00 575/30.03.07 10025 28.03.07 24.890 76860.00 1537.00 769.00 576/30.03.07 0426162 20.12.06 16.920 4351.00 869.00 0.00 257.22.12.06 4.1 From the above data, it is appar....