2018 (4) TMI 890

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2. The allegation as per the show cause notice is that the appellant is that the appellant is a manufacture of bushing metal parts for transformers and parts of locomotives falling under Chapter Heading 8504 of Central Excise Tariff Heading. The premises of the appellant was visited on 28th July, 2010 wherein enquiries were conducted. The statement of partner Shri Sidharth Goel was recorded under Section 14 wherein he stated that he is partner for the last 15 years they are engaged in the same business. They registered with the Central Excise Department. Superintendent AE showed invoice No. 29 dated 10th May 2006 and RUD-1 existing the copper ingots weighing 2002 kgs. valued at Rs. 8,82,001.10 involving Central Excise duty of Rs. 1,22,522/-....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....and on disallowed the Cenvat credit demand by the appellant firm and penalty was also imposed on the firm and the partner Shri Sidharth Goel. Further, penalty was also imposed on the supplier - first stage dealer M/s Rachna Metal Industries, Delhi - 6. 3. The show cause notice was adjudicated on contest vide order-in-original dated 27/04/2012. In defence, the appellant submitted their reply that they have never ordered for purchase of Ingots on said V.K. Metals Works. They exercised due delegations and certain bonafide of certain supplier - M/s Rachna Metals Industries. They have no control on Rachna Metal Industries or V.K. Metal Works. The show cause notice release on statement of various persons and same persons may be produced for cros....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ct the appeal upholding the finding in the order-inoriginal. 5. The learned Counsel for the appellant states that there is no allegation in the show cause notice that the appellant did not use copper in the manufacture of their final products. Further, there is no allegation that the appellant has sourced copper ingots etc. from other source for utilization in the manufacture of dutiable finished products wherein admittedly copper is required. The learned Counsel further states that the statement was taken of the partner under pressure during the late hours in the evening and, as such, only for the sake of non-retraction, the same cannot be taken as categorical admission. Accordingly, he states that the order of the courts below vitiated a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....they are wrongly availed Cenvat credit on fractious invoices issued by the said concerns. Transporters confirmed that copper rods/bars were not transported in the said firms. Further adjudication order against M/s Kejriwal Enterprises one of the suppliers was confirmed by the Tribunal accepting the position they have not been issued wires etc. and had fraudulently issued cenvetable invoices. Under that circumstances, held that the firm did not manufacture wires and undertaken by firms then the alleged supplies and Modvat credit claim have to be rejected. 7. Having considered the rival contentions, I find that the facts herein are similar to the case in CCE, CUS & ST Vs. Juhi Alloys Ltd. 2014 (302) E.L.T. 487 (All.), wherein Hon 'ble Al....