TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (11) TMI 782
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l Recycling Pvt Ltd, Samana Concast Mgg, Northern India Steel Rolling Mills Mgg, Dasmesh Alloys Mgg, Shiva Castings Pvt Ltd Mandi Gobindgarh, Ms Dasmesh Castings Pvt Ltd, Shri Ganesh Alloys Mgg., Hind Alloys Mgg, Anil Kumar, Shri Kanha Steel Rolling Mills Mgg, Ms Harish Goyal, Ms A R Castings Pvt Ltd, Ganga Castings Mandi Gobindgarh, Ashirwad Steel & Agro Industries Mgg, Shri Jagdish Chand Bansal Director, Ms Malerkotla Steel Alloys Pvt. Ltd., Rajesh Gupta, Durga Multimetals Pvt. Ltd., J S Khalsa Steels Pvt Ltd, Sanjay Gupta, Punjab Steels, Shri Rajesh Kumar Mittal, Ms Sona Castings Pvt Ltd, Pawan Kumar, Ms Regal Alloys Pvt Ltd, Naresh Joshi, Subhash Chandra, Nishant Goel, Ms Bhawani Castings Pvt Ltd, Ramal Kumar, Ashok Kumar, Manish Dhingra, Tara Chand Aggarwal, Surendra Pal Bansal, Ms K L Alloys Pvt Ltd, Jeewan Kumar, Ms Behari Lal Ispat Pvt Ltd, Ms Rajdhani Iron Products Pvt Ltd, C S Castings Pvt. Ltd. Mgg, Dinesh Garg, Suresh Mittal, Paul Steels Pvt Ltd, D.H.Casting Pvt. Ltd. Khanna, Jaswinder Singh Matharoo, M/s Shiva Alloys, Bhawani Industries Ltd Mandi Gobindgarh, Jai Parkash Goyal Director, Ms Raja Alloys Metals Pvt Ltd, Kamal Kant Versus CCE, Chandigarh-i ORDER Per: Mr. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f invoices and issuing invoices to the furnace units without supply of goods and the amount received in cash from re-rollable scrap were paid to the furnace units after deducting their commission. Therefore, the furnace units are not entitled to avail cenvat credit. Correspondently, the same are recoverable from them and all the appellants are involved in such a gamut of paper transactions are to be penalized. In these set of facts, a show cause notice dated 20.01.2017 was issued to the units who are taking cenvat credit on the invoices issued by the three scrap dealers cited herein above during the period 01.01.2012 to 27.11.2012 and the same was sought to be recovered from them alongwith interest and to impose penalty on all the appellants including scrap dealers. The matter was adjudicated and the impugned order has been passed as stated in Paragraph-1 herein above. Against the said order, the appellants are before us. 3. The Ld. Counsel Shri Sudhir Malhotra on behalf of the appellants, namely, Shri Adarsh Garg Director, M/s Jogindra Castings Pvt Ltd, Shri Sanjay Gupta, M/s Oasis Enterprises, M/s Mathli Steels, M/s Neelkanth Recycling Pvt. Ltd, Shri Rajesh Gupta, M/s Durga Mul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....remises of M/s Yashoda Traders of panchnama dt. 27.11.2012. Reg. Denial of cenvat credit against invoices of M/s SST, M/s SMM & M/s YT II. (a) The major case has been built up on the basis of record resumed (File No. 26 & 27) from godown of M/s SST vide panchnama dt. 27.11.2012 allegedly drawn in the presence of Sh. Avtar Singh - Auth. Signatory of M/s SST and two independent witnesses. (b) The File No. 26, 27 allegedly resumed from godown of M/s SST on 27.11.2012, contained details of transactions relating to goods sold to Rolling Mills without bills by M/s SST. Sh. Sanjay Kumar Goel - Manager of M/s SST provided the names of Rolling Mills to whom goods were sent without bills and names of the furnace units to whom cenvatable invoices issued without actual supply of goods. At the outset, it is pertinent to mention that the File No. 26 & 27 contained photocopies and not original of any document. The pen drive resumed from godown of M/s SST on 27.11.2012, did not contain any incriminating documents. Further, none of the Rolling Mill whose names deposed by Sh. Sanjay Kumar Goel, Manager of M/s SST recorded in the impugned order have been made co-noticee in the instant case.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h. Sanjay Kumar Goel , Manager of M/s SST during cross examination on 26.12.2018 before Ld. Adjudicating Authority deposed that besides handling work of M/s SST, he was engaged in handling the work of brokerage, arranging finance for others and trading in personal capacity. They supplied goods to both Furnace Units as well as Rolling Mills with invoices. He studied upto 5th standard and had no knowledge of maintaining account. The original documents were not shown to him while recording his statements. His all statements were recorded under pressure/threat. He did not give any statement which revealed from the cross examination of Sh. Sanjay Kumar Goel. (e) Sh. Raj Kumar Kakaram Bansal, Partner of M/s SST during cross examination on 26.12.2018 before ld. Adjudicating authority , deposed that during the period January 2012 to November 2012 he never visited Mandi Gobindgarh; he denied supply of goods to Rolling Mills without bills and receipt of payment in cash thereto. III. The cenvat credit has been denied/demanded from furnace units based upon photocopies of documents allegedly recovered from cloth bag hidden in the bushes in godown of M/s SST and marked as File No. 26 & 27 (R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rroboration to entries made, brought on records. The table No. 7 shows that invoice No. 1191 dt. 18.07.2012 issued by M/s SST to M/s Kanha Steel Rolling Mills, Mandi Gobindgarh. There are nothing corroborative brought on records to substantiate goodless invoice raised to M/s Kanha Rolling Steel Mills by M/s SST. The Table No. 8, 9, 10 of impugned order purportedly shows sale of goods without invoice to M/s Royal Industries on 29.06.2012 vide vehicle No. 4563 against amount received in cash of Rs. 14,29,700/- as per page No. 115 of File No. 26 (RUD-13). There are no invoice number and date mentioned at said page 115 i.e. invoice No. 963 dt. 28.06.2012 against which goods sold to M/s Jogindra Castings Pvt. Ltd. The Table no. 11 of impugned order reveals that invoice no. 963 dt. 28.06.2012 issued by M/s SST to M/s Jogindra Castings Pvt. Ltd. The vehicle No. PB 13R-4563 mentioned on said invoice No. 963 dt. 28.06.2012, there are no investigation has been caused from transporter/driver. Further, the value of said invoice is Rs. 13,91,778/- and amount received against allegedly supply of goods on 29.06.2012 to M/s Royal Industries is Rs. 14,29,700/-. It may kindly be appreciated that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....freight of Rs. 70,704/- out of which Rs. 5,000/- paid in advance to the driver and the balance was paid to the driver after unloading the goods in cash. (a) The Table-20 of impugned order purportedly shows the ledger of M/s SMM maintained by M/s SST. It has been alleged that there were overwriting of some of entries in the name of M/s Neelkanth and M/s Shiva Castings, but Sh. Rajesh Kumar could not offer any answer of such overwriting. There is nothing corroborative brought on records to substantiate that goods were delivered to furnace unit without invoices against said over-writing entries or cash in lieu of cheque were returned to parties mentioned therein. There are neither any statements of consignee nor of transporter nor any flow back of cash brought on records to justify the stand that cenvatable invoices were raised to furnace unit without supply of goods thereto. V. Sh. Yogesh Mittal, Partner M/s YT during cross examination on 26.12.2018 before Ld. Adjudicating Authority deposed that he was not shown any document and forcefully his signatures were taken. The Ld. Adjudicating Authority did not allow the question as to whether goods were sold to Rolling Mills and bills w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ices disputed by department nor any evidence of flow back in cash in lieu of payment made through cheque justified. Reg. Furnace Units There is no dispute regarding receipt of excisable goods from various ship breaking units of Bhavnagar on payment of duty against statutory invoices by M/s SST, M/s SMM & M/s YT - registered dealers. The issue relates to diversion of goods to registered or un-registered units on cash basis without invoices and issue of cenvatable invoices to furnace units without actual supply of excisable goods. VIII. The Furnace units i.e. M/s Jogindra Casting Pvt. Ltd., M/s Oasis Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., M/s Durga Multimetals Pvt. Ltd., M/s Neelkanth Cycling Pvt. Ltd. etc. have given details of raw material purchased from registered dealers under reference and from others. The detail of finished goods manufactured thereto were cleared on payment of duty. As to how goods manufactured and cleared on payment of higher amount of duty in absence of receipt of raw material from M/s SST, M/s SMM and M/s YT not brought on records. There is no allegation of substitution of any raw material received from the market without invoice thereto. There are neither statement of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eference except minor shortage of finished goods of 12.440 MT that too on eye estimation in case of M/s Jogindra Castings Pvt. Ltd. (a) The appellants under reference made payment against raw material purchases through banking channel. There are no evidence brought on record regarding receipt of cash by them in lieu of cheques payment made to M/s SST, M/s SMM and M/s YT. The ld. Adjudicating authority erred in placing reliance on statement of Sh. Sanjay Kumar Goel - Manager M/s SST, Sh. Raj Kumar Kakaram Bansal - Partner M/s SST , Sh. Avtar Singh - Accountant M/s SST & M/s SMM , Sh. Ram Bector - Asstt. Manager M/s YT, Sh. Yogesh Mittal - Partner M/s YT , Sh. Parveen Kumar - Broker, as the said persons during cross examination inter-alia deposed having supplied goods alongwith invoices to furnace units; their statements recoded under pressure and denied their statements were voluntarily in nature. The ld. Adjudicating authority failed to appreciate the deposition made during cross examination before him. The Ld. Adjudicating Authority held that appellant received only cenvatable invoices without goods. There is no allegation of substitution/receipt of alternate inputs against ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....LT 21 (SC) refers. XI. The submissions made by appellants in reply to show cause notice, but, the Ld. Adjudicating Authority has not controverted the submissions of appellants, in his findings of impugned order, he simply reproduced the averments of show cause notice to uphold the allegations. XII. Enquiry from weighbridge There were no investigation caused from weighbridge to substantiate delivery of goods other than furnace units. XIII. Enquiry from Transporters The investigation conducted from transporters reveals that it relates to transportation of goods from Bhavnagar to M/s SST & M/s YT and payment of transportation charges in cash to the drivers. There is no dispute regarding receipt of goods by M/s SST, M/s SMM and M/s YT from Bhavnagar. The invoices possesses registration number of vehicle, there were no investigation caused from transporter/driver substantiating non-delivery of goods to Furnace Unit. XIV. Independent Corroboration M/s SST, M/s SMM and M/s YT are co-noticee in the instant case and their statements incorrectly relied upon in impugned order in absence of corroboration. The Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Davinder Sandhu Impex Ltd. Vs. CCE 201....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ccused, cannot be used as substantive evidence, it has to be corroborated by independent sources. XV. Reg. Third Party Documents and Photocopies The documents allegedly recovered from third party M/s SST, M/s YT relied upon without any corroboration, which is not an admissible evidence. The Hon'ble Tribunal in the cases of: a) Savitri Concast Ltd. Vs. CCE 2015 (329) ELT 213 (T) held that private records / ledger books recovered from third persons premises cannot be made basis for duty evasion in absence of independent corroboration. The decision of Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Raizo Plasto Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE 2017-TIOL-2330-CESTAT-CHD also refers. b) Arya Fibres Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE 2014 (311) ELT 529 (T) held that private records recovered from buyer premises can not be made sole basis for demand for clandestine removal in absence of corroborative evidence. XVI The documents relied upon are photocopies, which is not admissible evidence in law without corroboration. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of J. Yashoda Vs. K. Shobha Rani 2007 (212) ELT 458 (SC) held that photocopy of documents - contents of documents - secondary evidence cannot be admitted without product....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....missions on behalf of M/s Sai Steel Traders:- (i) A penalty of Rs. 20,34,12,484/- has been imposed upon M/s SST under Rule 25(1)(d) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 on the allegation that they have sold the goods on cash basis without invoice to various units (registered or unregistered) and cenvatable invoice for the said goods were issued to registered units without actual supply of goods to them, thereby, facilitating availment of inadmissible credit. (ii) That as per Show Cause Notice two premises of M/s SST were searched in MandiGobindgarh by the investigation team. An office at Motia Khan, Sai Market, MandiGobindgarh, was shown to be office of M/s SST. The said office was not of M/s SST rather was personal office of Shri Sanjay Kumar Goyal who not only owns the said place but also physically occupied the same for his own use from where he did his own brokerage for sale of material and trading on personal account, apart from working as part time Manager for M/s SST. A copy of sale deed dated 22.07.2010 in favour of Sanjay Kumar Goyal was also submitted. (iii) Any recovery made at premises of third party cannot be relied upon to confirm demand against the other parties unless t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tocopies) resumed from Godown of M/s SST (vide Panchnama RUD-2) and later marked as RUD-13. The same can be seen from heading of Annexure B to the Show Cause Notice (at handwritten page No. 354 of convenience Compilation-II) which reads as "COMPARISON CHART OF FILE NO. 26 RECOVERED FROM M/S SAI STEEL TRADERS AND CORRESPONDING INVOICES ISSUED BY M/S SAI STEEL TRADERS". (vii) File No. 26 RUD-13 was a bunch of photocopies of papers shown to be resumed from the godown of M/s SST (at handwritten Page No. 518 of convenience Compilation-II) and alleged to be maintained by Shri Sanjay Kumar Goyal. However, Shri Sanjay Kumar Goyal, in cross examination,denied to have maintained the said record the way it is presented both in terms of figures and presentation/shown recording of transaction. Rather, he specifically stated that the record is manipulated by way of fudging figures/names or scan copy paste. (viii) Despite of demand of original of RUD-13, the same was neither shown by investigating agency nor was shown by the Adjudicating Authority. (ix) It is categoric stand of M/s STT that the said record RUD-13 and 14 referred in Show Cause Notice as file at S.No. 26 &27, was not available a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....brief contents of "bunch of papers" were not noted in resumption memo. (h) The statement dated 27.11.2012 (RUD 22) of Avtar Singh states that the said record pertained to "details of entry tax and payments received in cheque as well as cash". Entry Tax is payable at the time of entry of goods in to Punjab. Thus, the said record could not have been related to sale by M/s SST after receipt by them. (xii) The above clearly shows that no such cloth bag recovered from the premises of M/s SST. It is submitted that the visiting team who arrived in the godown was constantly in touch with a third party competitor of the M/s SST over phone and was taking instruction from him. Ld. Adjudicating Authority was requested to summon call records of the visiting team during the period of raid i.e. 1200 hours to 1700 hours on 27.11.2012 which will clearly show the actual fact. However, no efforts were made by the Adjudicating Authority. It is the case of M/s SST that the said bag was planted by the visiting team on its own accord or on instruction of a third party competitor. The truth would have come out in the detailed enquiry. (xiii) This is the reason that the visiting staff did not offer any....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ytx Industries Pvt. Ltd. No Show Cause Notice 9. M/s Super Steel Traders No Show Cause Notice It can be seen that out of nine parties mentioned above, no Show Cause Notice has been issued to five parties. Therefore, there is no consistency and credibility of investigation where the Show Cause Notice has been issued on whims and fancies rather than tangible evidence. (xvii) In any case, no data of alleged pendrive can be relied upon in the present case because the provision of Section 36B of the Central Excise Act has not been complied with. Relying upon M/s Popular Paints and Chemicals Vs. CCE - Final Order No. 52716-52718/2018 and M/s Magnum Steels Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2017 (358) ELT 529 (Tri.). (xviii) That the false case made by the department at behest of one of competitor of M/s SST, on his false and misleading information is on weakest footing being not supported by any evidence. On the other hand, M/s SST has: (a) duly purchased goods from suppliers of Bhavnagar which is not disputed by department (b) goods were appropriately duty paid which is not disputed by department (c) goods were actually transported uptoMandiGobindgarh which is not disputed by department ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vat credit of Rs. 5,36,28,668/-. However, the demand in the present Show Cause Notice has been raised for more than Rs. 20.34 cr. against various parties. Therefore, without prejudice to other things, with regard to demand of Rs. 15 crore there is nothing in the Show Cause Notice or the Order in Original and the same is merely a result of assumptions and presumptions. (i) The statements relied upon in the Show Cause Notice are either retracted on the very next day or have been broken in cross examination. (j) The alleged records are resumed from third party who maintained the same for his personal use and contained entries relating to his own business also. (k) The recovery made under RUD-2 is highly suspicious and made in doubtful circumstances. (l) The record RUD-13 which is sole basis of present case, is an unauthenticated photocopy which is not admissible in evidence. (xx) The above two paras would show that when the case of M/s SST is put against the case set up by department, it is clear that there is no evidence against M/s SST or its buyers which may lead to recovery of cenvat credit or imposition of penalty. Rather, M/s SST has complied with all provisions of law,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ved in cash. (vii) The revenue authority in the impugned order has failed to bring on record any evidence from where it can be established beyond doubt that Sh. Raj Kumar Kakaram was involved in issuing of impugned cenvat invoices,then the imposition of penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 is unwarranted. Submissions on behalf of Shri Sanjay Kumar Goyal:- (i) The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the penalty against Sh. Sanjay Kumar Goyal amounting to Rs. 10,00,000/- under Rule 26(2) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 read section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Section 174(2) of the CGST Act, 2017. (ii) After the visits were conducted, the DGCEI Officers identified Shri Sanjay Kumar Goyal as a person of weak heart who may give up under their pressure and thereafter they targeted the Sanjay Kumar Goyal for extracting the statement of their convenience. The Sanjay Goyal was called to the office of DGCEI many times and was threatened of arrest as well as was beaten badly. The Sanjay Goyal was kept at the office without any food or water till he signed the statement printed by the officers. During investigations, the officers always spoke to a third person se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e in Motia Khan, Sai Market, Mandi Gobindgarh including RUD-11, it is submitted that the said record is Sanjay Kumar Goyal's personal record. That these are not record of Sai Steel Trader. The Sanjay Kumar Goyal apart from handling work of Sai Steel Trader, was also working in his personal capacity as broker / trader and arranged finances for others. In order to keep a track on the supplies / finances facilitated in his personal capacity, he used to maintain his personal records wherein all the entries were made by him as per his own understandings. Since, the Sanjay Kumar Goyal is merely 8th pass and is not conversant with making of accounts he used to make temporary records in consolidated manner which contained details of his personal dealings / brokerage as well as transactions of M/s Sai Steel Trader, without having any relevant of Debit/credit side of accounts. These records were for his personal reference because the parties maintained statutory records at their own premises such as M/s Sai Steel Traders maintained their proper records at their premises. (ix) With regard to RUD-13, before the DGCEI, the Sanjay Kumar Goyal doubted the correctness of this record which is alle....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n MandiGobindgarh to earn some extra money. The Sanjay Kumar Goyal used to arrange through his personal brokerage system certain transactions planning schedule on the same day or in one or two days gap. By these means, the drivers used to keep 50% of the freight and 50% was kept by the Sanjay Kumar Goyal. Thus, some of the entries may be coinciding on the dates because of this reason. (xiii) The allegation of revenue is also incorrect because they have presumed the abbreviation of names as per their own convenience and while recording statement dated 03.12.2015 (RUD-28) made Sanjay Kumar Goyal to write certain decoding of abbreviations as per their choice and dictation. The perusal of so called RUD-11 and RUD-13 would show that the alleged abbreviations are not identifiable to the names suggested by the revenue such as AGG is decoded as Aggarwal Iron and Steel, MK is decoded as MKS Cess, DR is decoded as DR Steels, SATPAL is decoded as SATPAL Steel Industries, GANPATI is decoded as GANPATI Steel. The said decoding is highly presumptive. It is submitted that in MandiGobindgarh and surrounding area, there are multiple brokers/traders/manufacturing units exists having similar names. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....w Cause Notice Issued 1. Satpal Table 1 to 4 at Page 5 to 8 No Show Cause Notice 2. Ashirwad Steel rolling mills Table 6 & 7 at page 14 to 16 No. Show Cause Notice 3. M/s Royal Table 8 to 11 at page 17 to 20 No Show Cause Notice issued 4. Balaji Table 13 to 16 at Page 22 to 25 No Show Cause Notice issued (xvii) Thus the so called buyers of goods without invoices were not even issued even Show Cause Notice nor were subjected to the penalty. (xviii) No case has been made out for imposition of penalty against M/s SST under Rule 25 Submissions on behalf of M/s Yashoda Traders:- (i) A penalty of Rs. 23,91,084/- has been imposed upon M/s YT under Rule 25(1)(d) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 on the allegation that they have adopted same modus operandi as of M/s SST (Para 4.6.1, Internal Page 166 of Order in Original). (ii) The allegation of the department is that the entries in RUD 46 which matches with RG23D register's entries are genuine transactions and the remaining entries are mere supply of invoices without supply of goods. The said rest of the entries of the RG-23D for the period 01.10.2012 to 27.11.2012 has been impugned by the department witho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re shown File no. 26 (RUD 13 relating to M/s SST) was only shown and questions regarding same were put to him. No specific questions were put to them in relation to the M/s YT. In any case, it is admitted case of revenue that the said parties did not give any inculpatory statements. (ix) Even for recording statement misrepresentations were made in front of Sh. Jagdish Chander Bansal of M/s A.R. Castings and he was forced to reverse the credit under mis-representation of facts. His cross examination was allowed, however, he failed to come on first opportunity and no further opportunity was granted. Section 9D was not complied with regard to his statement. (x) The cash resumed was well accounted in the books of Yashoda Traders and no opportunity to explain the source of same was given to the noticee. The balance sheet was submitted before the Adjudicating Authority. (xi) That the penalty is not imposable on M/s YT as there is no evidence at all to implicate them for diversion of goods. Submissions on behalf of Shri Yogesh Mittal:- (i) The revenue authority while imposing penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules has not established any specific role of Sh. Yogesh Mittal ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rta (RUD-13) nowhere admits any illegal purchase in respect of the entries mentioned in Table 33. Therefore, this extraction is completely false and in order to mislead the Hon'ble Adjudicating Authority. In any case, there is no connection of M/s SST with the said entry, therefore, the said entry or table 33 is of no consequence to the present case. (iv) Other than above, there is no specific allegation in the Show Cause Notice against Sh. Parveen Mittal and the adjudicating authority failed to bring on record any evidence against Sh. Parveen Mittal there is no discussion of the role of Sh. Parveen Mittal in the impugned order that how he was involved and why the penalty is imposed on him. Submissions on behalf of M/s Sai Multi Metals:- (i) A penalty of Rs. 70,76,919/- has been imposed upon M/s SMM under Rule 25(1)(d) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 (same allegation as M/s SST Para 4.6.1, Internal Page 166 of Order in Original). (ii) It is submitted that the demand in the present case is based on the analysis of alleged evidence in 'Annexure B' to the Show Cause Notice. The said Annexure B contains entries in relation to only M/s Sai Steel Traders. The said annexure does not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....revenue for non-transport of goods. It is settled law that in order to allege paper transaction, the revenue must bring on record evidence from side of transporter that the goods were not actually transported. The revenue has grossly failed to adduce the said evidence in present case. Section 9D not complied with (ix) It is a settled law that the statement recorded by investigating agency shall pass through the test of Section 9D of the Central Excise Act 1944, before the same is regarded as admissible in evidence. The Adjudicating Authority shall specifically record the finding regarding compliance of Section 9D by examining the witness before him and to record his satisfaction regarding relevance of the statement. In the present case the Adjudicating Authority has not complied with mandatory provision of Section 9D and thereby, the statements recorded in the present case and relied upon in the Order in Original cannot be treated as a valid evidence. 5. The Ld. Advocates Shri Naveen Bindal, Shri Sudeep Bhangoo, Shri Arun Kumar Mahajan and Shri Gaurav Agarwal Advocates appearing on behalf of the other appellants adopted the arguments advanced by Shri Sudhir Malhotra and Shri Sur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... against the goods supplied without invoice. (vii) Sh Sanjay Kumar Goel sent a retraction affidavit dated 16.01.2013 against his statement dated 15.01.2013. He was given an opportunity for tendering the evidence and statement on 18.03.2013 and on this date he, after seeing his earlier statement dated 15.01.2013, agreed with its contents. He again sent his retraction letter dated 19.03.2013, which was rebutted being not based on facts. (viii) Summons dated 28.04.2013 and 22.05.2013 were issued to Sh Raj Kumar Bansal, partner in SST. However, he vide his letter dated 11.06.2013 acknowledged the statements made by Sh Sanjay Kumar Goel and Sh Avtar Singh on his behalf and sought exemption from personal appearance on health frounds. (ix) Offices and residences of Sh Raj Kumar Kakaram Bansal, partner of SST were searched by the officers and during the search unaccounted cash was recovered. For this separate SCNs have been issued. (x) Sh Raj Kumar Kakaram Bansal, in his statement agreed to the facts stated by Sh Sanjay Kumar Goel and confirmed that the goods sent from ship breaking units in Bhavnagar were sold in cash to Rolling mills without issuance of any invoice and the correspond....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Jogindra Castings and Rs. 30 Lacs in the account of Oasis Enterprises. (xvii) Sh Jaswinder Singh Matharoo, Director in M/s C S Casting Pvt Ltd (another beneficiary) admitted that the entries of cheque and cash returned as mentioned the File No 26 resumed at SST against code 'CS' are related to M/s CS Castings. He also admitted that the amount of cheques shown given to SST was reflected in their ledger at a few days later date, which is a general trade practice in business of purchase of bills without goods and same is followed in this case. He further stated that this is his first mistake and he is ready to deposit his liability. (xviii) Sh Jagdish Chandra Bansal, director of M/s AR Castings Pvt Ltd (another beneficiary) in his statement also accepted his liability in respect of 8 invoices of YT and debited the duty liability. (xix) In addition to above M/s Allied Recycling Ltd; M/s Maa Ashirwad Steel Rolling Mills and M/s Lalji Alloys also admitted the receipt of bills without goods. (xx) In cases of other beneficiaries, though the concerned persons did not directly admit the procurement of Cenvatable invoices without actual receipt of goods but the entries of cheques in their....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nts were only the photocopies and not in original and no reliance can be placed on the same as photocopies cannot be considered as credible evidence to prove the case against them. (xxvii) In this regard, submitted that Sh Sanjay Kumar Goyal, authorised signatory of STT, in his statement tendered before the investigating agency, accepted the fact of recovery of the incriminating documents as well as the fact that the same were prepared by him and also the fact that he destroyed the records for the earlier periods. He further explained the entries contained in the recovered documents as well as decoded the names of all the persons/ parties/ units involved in the said modus operandi without raising any doubt regarding the genuineness of these documents, there remains no doubt about the evidentiary value of the recovered document and it does not make much difference whether the same were original documents or photocopies of the said documents. In view of above submissions, it is prayed that the appeals filed by the parties be dismissed. 7. Heard the parties and perused the records. All parties were directed to file the written submissions. As per the direction of this Tribunal, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wn to me while recording my statement. 11. As, Shri Avtar Singh in his cross examination has stated that he was working on his table at office at the time of visit and he alone was present and there was no other person present in the godown. The godown is in 8 bighas area, there are four rooms and rest of the area is open. No recovery of bag was made in his presence, the visiting staff informed him recovery of bag from the godown, the visiting staff also did not offer their personal search, therefore, the recovery of cloth bag containing documents & pendrive is doubtful. 12. We further take a note of the fact that the panchas to the panchnama dt. 27.11.2012 are not independent witnesses, but, they are under active influence in the Central Excise Department, as Shri Sachin Brar S/o Shri Dalip Brar R/o House No. 92, Sector 5, Block A, Prem Nagar, Mandi Gobindgarh was working in Central Excise Department, Mandi Gobindgarh on 27.11.2012 as an recruit of Manpower Contractor even upto 01.07.2017, whose cross examination was not allowed. The above facts are on record and are not denied by the revenue though any corroborative evidence. The denial of cross examination of the Panch Shri S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....held by this Tribunal in the case of M/s Hindustan Machines (supra). We, further, find that the records maintained by third party containing details of various parties, cannot be connected to M/s SST as held by this Tribunal in the case of M/s Riyazo Plasto Pvt. Ltd. wherein this Tribunal observed as under:- "34. I find that the ledger book has been recovered from the father of the ShriSurinderRaizada who stated that he was maintaining personal records and to the records the account of the firm of his wife Mrs. SapnaRaizada, proprietor of M/s Raizo Chemicals and also recoding the financial position of the appellant company. The records recovered does not pertain to M/s RaizoPlasto Pvt. Ltd. nodescription of the goods was found, there is only presumption is that on the basis of the statement recorded during the course of investigation that these entries found in the ledge book maintained by ShriRaizada S.S. Vaid pertains to the business activity by the appellant company. No concrete evidence has been produced by the Revenue to rely on the entries of the said ledger books with regard to the purchase of raw material or removal of finished goods, how the said finished goods sold out....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by visiting staff that they recovered cloth bag from their premises. (v) He specifically stated that no personal search was offered by the visiting staff. (vi) The bundle of document shown are only photocopies which are later marked as RUD-13. (vii) The said bunch of papers were not sealed by the team. Even brief contents of "bunch of papers" were not noted in resumption memo. (viii) The statement dated 27.11.2012 (RUD 22) of Avtar Singh states that the said record pertained to "details of entry tax and payments received in cheque as well as cash". Entry Tax is payable at the time of entry of goods in to Punjab. Thus, the said record could not have been related to sale by M/s SST after receipt by them. The above clearly shows that no such cloth bag recovered from the premises of M/s SST. It is submitted that the visiting team who arrived in the godown was constantly in touch with a third party competitor of the M/s SST over phone and was taking instruction from him. Ld. Adjudicating Authority was requested to summon call records of the visiting team during the period of raid i.e. 1200 hours to 1700 hours on 27.11.2012 which will clearly show the actual fact. However, no effo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed Central Excise duty. (v) The persons alleged of buying goods without invoices were also not enquired as to how did they sell their final product manufactured out of such unaccounted inputs, their electricity consumption, manpower, capacity of manufacturing etc was also not examined. Most importantly, since they were not registered with the department claiming SSI exemption, no Show Cause Notice has been issued to such parties firstly, for evading Central Excise duty for suppressing their turnover by receiving such unaccounted material, secondly, for abetting the availment of inadmissible Cenvat Credit. (vi) There is no enquiry as to how much goods without bills were purchased by which party. (vii) There is no enquiry from all the parties involved in the transaction but the revenue has taken a small sample to confirm the allegations on entire transaction for the relevant period. (viii) Annexure B to the Show Cause Notice in which the revenue has presumed the connection of entries made in RUD-13 with that of invoices issued by M/s SST, contains entries which totals to cenvat credit of Rs. 5,36,28,668/-. However, the demand in the present Show Cause Notice has been raised for m....