TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (4) TMI 415
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Whether the findings that CENVAT credit of Rs. 85,22,040/- availed / utilized is based on valid invoices with receipt of inputs; and therefore, the demand of CENVAT credit of along with interest and imposition of equivalent penalty on the appellant, M/S. Stovekraft Pvt. Ltd. are required to be set aside as held by Member(Judicial)? OR Whether the findings that CENVAT credit of Rs. 85,22,040/- availed / utilized is based on fake invoices without receipt of inputs; and therefore, the demand of CENVAT credit of Rs. 85,22,040/- along with interest and imposition of equivalent penalty on the appellant, M/S. Stovekraft Pvt. Ltd. are required to be upheld as held by Member(Technical)? iii. Whether imposition of penalty of Rs. 75,00,000/- on the appellant, Shri Rajendra J. Gandhi is required to be set aside as held by Member(Judicial)? OR Whether imposition of penalty of on the appellant, Shri Rajendra J. Gandhi is required to be upheld as held by Member(Technical)? 70. With the above difference of opinion between the Members (J) & (T), I heard Shri Jaikumar and Shri B. Venugopal, learned advocates for the assessees and Shri PRV R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....manufacturing. It is the allegation of the Department that unaccounted raw material was purchased from M/S. Maya Udyog, Ahmedabad who was never examined by the department it is the submission of the learned counsel that it is the allegation that total supply from M/S. Maya Udyog was more than 30 lakhs kgs. and out of which, 10,54,000 kgs. of raw material was considered as unaccounted supply in the form of patta patties. It is the submission that to transport this material from Ahmedabad to Bangalore might have taken a number of days and with a number of trucks. Without bills, it was not possible. There was no attempt on the part of the Department to verify the same. In fact, whatever amount of raw material was received that was against purchase orders, proper bills and payments were made through cheques. There is no unaccounted supply by M/S. Maya Udyog. 74.1. The learned counsel continued to argue by mentioning that there were two bank accounts of the employees of the company viz. Shri Ashok Kumar and Shri Ravikanth and Rs. 26 lakhs and Rs.l.06 crores were routed through these bank accounts and on the date of investigation, there was 'zero' balance as the entire amount ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....formation received from the DRI, DGCEI has started the investigation and visited the administrative office of the SKPL which is located in the premises of M/S. Vardhaman Enterprises. Two USB pen drives were seized and in fact, Shri Lokesh was trying to handover the pen drives to one lady junior staff. But the Department has seized both the pen drives. Hence, the pen drives were not seized from the third party. Data mentioned in the pen drives and hard disk matches with railway receipts. On 24/01/2006, Shri Lokesh has accepted in his statement that he was maintaining parallel accounting in the pen drives. 75.2. The learned special counsel further submits that on 08/06/2006, statement of Shri Rajendra J. Gandhi was recorded where he has accepted that a few patta patties were received without bills from M/S. Maya Udyog and this statement was never retracted by Shri Rajendra J. Gandhi. On 17/07/2008, statement of Shri Rajendra J. Gandhi was again recorded where he has offered no comments. It means, he has not disputed the information/data retrieved in the pen drives. Further, Shri Rajendra J. Gandhi has accepted that there was unaccounted manufacture of the goods during the period A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed that the whole case of the Department is mainly on the basis of the two pen drives and the statements of Shri S.N. Lokesh and Shri Rajender J. Gandhi. But vide his letter dt. 27/06/2006, Shri Rajender J. Gandhi has retracted the statement which were recorded earlier on 24/01/2006 and 08/06/2006. The retraction is of course is in mild form by stating that the earlier statements were obtained under pressure. When there is a retraction of the statement of key persons, it was expected from the Department to collect some corroborative evidences. The same was not collected. Hence, I may not agree with the submission made on behalf of the Department that the statement need no further corroborated evidence especially when it was retracted. 82. Shri S.N. Lokesh has accepted in his statement that parallel accounting pertaining to the transaction of M/s. SKPL and M/S. Vardhaman Enterprises were maintained in the pen drives. From the record, it appears that M/S. Vardhaman Enterprises has supplied the finished goods through railway receipts which were found correct on verification. Thus, it is M/S. Vardhaman Enterprises who has received the payment and supply the finished goods. In the pe....