TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 249
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3. The respondent assessee is engaged in manufacture of MS ingots etc. falling under chapter heading 72 of the tariff. They are using MS scrap sponge iron and silicone manganese as inputs for the manufacture of MS ingots etc. The input MS scrap was shown to have been purchased from Simandhar Steel Movers (India) Private Ltd (Simandhar for short) a first stage dealers located at Mumbai. The said dealer had claimed to have purchased the said MS scrap from several ship breakers, situated at Alang, Bhavnagar, Gujarat. In the course of investigation the sales tax authorities of Gujarat State informed that as per their records the consignments of MS scrap, addressed to the said dealer Simandhar have not crossed sales tax check post en route to Maharashtra Mumbai. Further physical verification of stock at the dealer premises by the officers of Mumbai III Commissionerate revealed that there was no stock of MS scrap. The Supt. of Central Excise at Alang, Gujarat had also informed that some of the supplier units at Alang are closed since long. The inquiries with R.T.O at Thane, Mumbai, Pune and Aurangabad revealed that in some cases the vehicle number shown on input invoices, issued by Siman....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rther relied upon the ruling of this Tribunal in Bhagawati Steel Cast Ltd 2013 (293) ELT 417 and submitted that in the said judgement the credit was denied on the ground that as per the report of RTO some of the vehicles were not found capable of transportation and further that the assessee/buyer had not adduced any evidence in the form of goods receipt note or consignee copy of transporter document. In the case of Bhagawati it was also found that the supplier units to Simandhar had closedown since long and that some of the ship breaking units had denied clearance of goods to Simandhar. The learned AR further submits that the facts of the case of Bhagwati steel squarely cover the facts of the present appeals. Further reliance was also placed on the ruling of this Tribunal in Vipras Castings Limited 2015-TIOL-1454-CESTAT-MUM. Accordingly prays for allowing the appeals and setting aside the findings of the learned Commissioner. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents Shri JC Patel supporting the impugned order submits that the officers during their visit to the factory of Jalna Siddhi Vinayak recorded the statement of Shri Mahavir B. Dhariwal, manager (excise) who have clearly stat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urther no statement of transporter was brought on record. Thus the show cause notice by the Revenue is presumptive and the learned Commissioner have rightly refused to confirm the same. He further states that there is no allegation in the SCN that the appellants have sourced the raw material under dispute, from any alternative source. It is also not disputed that the appellants have manufactured dutiable products out of the raw material in dispute and cleared the same on payment of duty. The learned counsel also stated that in the case of Jalna Siddhi Vinayak their bankers gave written directions to submit stock statement for the month of August 2003 as on 31/08/2003 duly certified from proper Govt. authority. On the request of the respondent Jalna, the inspector of Central excise from the range office, verified the stock of raw material, finished goods as on 31/08/2003 in the following words checked quantity with the RG I and form-IV register . No discrepancy was ever found in the records of either of the respondents by the revenue. A copy of this stock verification by the Department have been annexed in the cross objection by the respondent. The loaded counsel further points out ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... stock of the respondent units from time to time, as is evident from the verification reports, filed with the cross objection. Further the demand for the period 2002 03 and 2003 04 have been raised vide show cause notice issued in the year 2006, that is after more than one year and as such the demand is also hit by limitation of time. The respondent unit had been subjected to audit by the Department from time to time and there were no adverse findings to this effect. 8. The learned counsel further relies among other rulings on the ruling of Honourable Allahabad High Court in the case of CCE versus Juhi Alloys Ltd. 2014 (302) ELT 487, wherein the Hon'ble High Court have observed that Rule 9(3) of CCR 2004 provides a deeming fiction - that the manufacturer would be deemed to have taken reasonable steps if it satisfies himself about identity and address of the supplier or Manufacturer. Further reliance is also placed on the ruling of Honourable Gujarat High Court in Motabhai Iron and Steel Industries 2015 (316) ELT 374. Accordingly he prays for dismissing the appeals by revenue and allowing the cross objections of the respondents. 9. Having considered the rival contentions and t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cords of payment of freight paid, to prove that the dealer has in fact received the input. Beyond the prescribed procedure, no onus is cast on assessee to prove his case through such documents. It was further observed that the records maintained by the respondents show receipt of inputs, further revenue have not brought any adverse evidence like shortage in stock of raw materials, etc. Further there is no positive evidence which shows that the respondents/assessee have not received the inputs covered by the invoices under dispute. Further there is no allegation on the respondents of having fabricated the invoices. So far the show cause notice invoking the extended of limitation, it have been observed by the learned Commissioner that there is no evidence that the respondent assessee have done any act of wilful suppression, misstatement, fraud, et cetera and thus the extended period of limitation is not invocable. 11. We find that the findings of the learned Commissioner are just and proper and do not suffer from any impropriety or illegality. Further we find that the respondents have discharged the onus on them in terms of rule 7(2) of CCR 2002, which provides that the manufactur....