2018 (11) TMI 347

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ry premises of M/s. Priya Engineering (hereinafter referred to as 'PE'), wherein the Revenue officers noticed that M/s. PE had availed CENVAT Credit on the basis of invoices issued by the appellant without the receipt of goods mentioned in the said invoices; (ii) That the officers find that M/s. PE had just purchased the bills from the appellant without actual receipt of goods, thereby fraudulently availing CENVAT on it; (iii) That the statement of Shri. P. Sivarama Krishnan, Proprietor of the appellant, recorded on 14.09.2012 also did not deny rather accepted the above findings; (iv) That M/s. PE accepted the fraudulent availment of CENVAT Credit as aforesaid and accordingly, paid an amount of Rs. 15,89,850/- on various dates alon....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 4 are very clear and categorical as to the modus operandi of the appellant itself. 5.1 On a perusal of the so-called statement of retraction recorded on 19.02.2015 by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Headquarters Preventive Unit, Chennai-I Commissionerate, I find that most of the questions were not required since, after giving the first statement on 14.09.2012, the appellant had not made any attempts to ascertain if there were any doubts and offer clarification. Further, it is not forthcoming as to what prompted this present officer to record the second statement on 19.02.2015; there is no explanation offered anywhere or even by the appellant who got itself subjected to re-examination. The whole scenario appears to be a set up, tha....