TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 213
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of goods actually received as per material inward register and that furnished in the respective dealer's invoice issued by M/s.Sri Amman Steels, Coimbatore. As part of investigation, various dealers were called to explain the stand with regard to supply of scraps to the appellants namely Sri Amman Steels, Sri Karpagam Steels, Coimbatore Super Alloys (P) Ltd. (appellant). From the investigations, it appeared that appellant had received only non-duty paid M.S. Scrap without any valid cenvat documents for the same from the Central Excise registered dealers and fraudulently taken ineligible Cenvat credit based on the Cenvat invoices of the dealers (who had not actually delivered the duty paid goods as indicated in their Cenvat invoices, but supplied only non-duty paid MS scraps; that appellants had deliberately connived with their dealers and received non-duty paid scrap on the strength of Cenvat invoices issued by them mentioning different description of goods with the sole motive of taking cenvat credit on the non-duty paid scrap; that appellant had wilfully suppressed the facts from the knowledge of the department with an intention to avail irregular Cenvat credit; that M/s.Sri Amm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....heque only, including the excise duty element. If they had received non duty paid goods, they would not have paid the excise duty element to the Registered Dealers who supplied the same. Therefore, the case of the Department is totally baseless. iii) Both the lower authorities held that Shri G. Baskaran had admitted that the goods supplied by him in respect of disputed 37 invoices are locally purchased non duty paid goods and not duty paid goods. The appellants submit that, apart from this statement there is no other corroborative evidences to establish that the goods supplied by M/s.Sri Amman Steels are in fact non duty paid goods. Hence, one has to see whether the statement of Shri G.Baskaran is voluntary statement and what is stated in the statement is correct or not ?. Apart from this whether the same can be relied as an evidence against the appellants?. iv) Appellants submit that department had culled out 37 invoices, out of the total supplies made by M./s.Sri Amman Steels during the period of dispute. The disputed goods were purchased by them from the First Stage Dealers, they in turn had purchased the goods from the manufacturers. The Department had not con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2004, with the above said description. Therefore this difference cannot be taken as reason to arrive at a conclusion that the goods supplied by the dealers are non duty paid goods. In fact in respect of all the goods received by them from various dealers, they had mentioned the goods in the Material Inward Register as MS Scrap. Even in some of the disputed invoices where it was mentioned as "waste and scrap" in their invoices for eg.sl.no.4,5, 10,12,14,15,20,21,25,26,28 of the list prepared by the department, it was mentioned as Ms scrap in their register, such cases was also disallowed. The term "MS Scarp" is used in common parlance for all Scrap in the market. Therefore, the same has been mentioned in the Material Inward Register for all the goods received by them from the dealers. Therefore, this also cannot be a reason to assume that the goods supplied by the dealers are non duty paid goods. viii) In the Commercial parlance, scrap in any form is called as MS Scrap. The dealers in their Excise invoice has mentioned the description i.e. HR Steel Coil bits, HR Coil cuttings, MS Sheet cuttings, MS Scrap, CR cutting, HR Coils (Scrap) etc. as mentioned by their suppliers i.e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arpagam Steels who inter alia admitted that they had supplied "MS scrap to appellants through Sri Amman Steels; that the original goods procured under cover of cenvat invoices were diverted to some other parties who did not need these cenvat bills. 5.3 However, in the replies dt. 16.08.2010 and also 18.08.2010 to the SCN, Sri Amman Steels and Sri Karpagam Steels had denied the allegations and had also actually submitted that they had received the payment from appellant for the supplies made by them and hence it could not be alleged that they had issued only the invoices. 5.4 As per para-2 of the SCN, officers attached to the Headquarters Preventive Unit, Coimbatore visited the appellant's manufacturing unit on 25.09.2008, based on the intelligence gathered, that appellants are availing irregular cenvat credit on the non-duty paid inputs received fraudulently in the guise of CR, HR, CR sheets, rejected CR etc. When the visit to the factory of the appellant was made with such specific intelligence, the minimal action that even a rookie officer would be expected to do is firstly to conduct a stock taking, at least of the raw material inputs lying in the factory and secondly, tak....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that has been done at the end of such manufacturer suppliers, to ascertain whether in fact they had supplied the said CR, HR, CR sheets etc. to the dealers concerned. 5.9 In the event, the entire allegations are supported only by the statement of Shri G.Baskaran, Proprietor of Amman Steels. The examination of Shri G. Baskaran was requested for by the appellants vide their letter dt. 05.01.2011. However, from the facts on record (para16) of the OIO dt. 30.03.2011, it emerges that Shri Baskaran vide a letter dt. 16.03.2011 conveyed his disinclination to appear for a cross examination on the grounds that they had already filed their reply to the SCN and that they were also a co-noticee in the SCN. The reply alluded to by Shri Baskaran is the letter dt.16.08.2010, reference to which is found in para-13 of the OIO. In the said reply, the allegations made in the SCN have been denied and it has been contended that the depositions made were not corroborated with any tangible or material evidence; that they received payments from the appellant for the supplies and it could not be alleged that they had issued only their invoices. In the circumstances, we find that even the slender thread ....