2018 (5) TMI 1040

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....single order. 3. Heard both sides and perused the records. 4. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are appellants M/s Sunrise Metal Corporation and M/s Prathmesh Steel, a partnership firm, were charged in the show-cause notice of issuing invoices which were not accompanying with the goods indicated in the said documents and that they were passing ineligible CENVAT credit to their purchasers. After detailed investigation, adjudicating authority held that M/S Sunrise Metal Corporation and M/s Prathmesh Steel had, in fraudulent manner without the goods being delivered on the invoices, assisted M/s Harisons Steel Ltd to avail ineligible CENVAT credit; the vehicle in which bazaar scrap was loaded and seized at the premises of M/....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... to confiscation as admittedly these goods were bazaar scrap and excisability thereof was not in question; that provisions of Section 119 of the customs Act, 1962 as applicable to Central Excise Act was invoked and the provisions of Section 119 of the Customs Act, 1962 will not apply as the said section willapply to the goods used for concealing smuggled goods. He submits that in the case in hand, there is factual finding as to which goods were concealed by bazaar scrap seized by the authorities. Hence, confiscation needs to be set aside. 6. Learned D.R. reiterating the order-in-appeal submits that the penalty provisions have been correctly invoked as the partnership firm and the individuals were engaged in passing on ineligible CENVAT c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... partners of the firms clearly indicate that they had issued invoices without physical movement of the goods indicated on the duty paying documents, It is also to be noted that appellant partnership firms M/s Sunrise Metal Corporation and M/s Prathmesh Steel had shown in their books of accounts, receipt of duty paid scrap from the manufacturer of Iron and Steel which itself in doubt, is the claim of the Revenue. Be that as it may, the fact that the goods accompanying the duty paying documents was not stainless steel but were local scrap is itself enough to hold that the penal provisions invoked against the partnership firms is correct. Penalty imposed on the firm by the adjudicating authority is under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 20....