2008 (7) TMI 106

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of receipt of excess quantity of MS Ingots under parallel invoices, resulting in excess availment of cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 54,094/-. The officers seized MS Ingots covered by these four invoices in the factory of M/s. Shri Yogi Steel Pvt. Ltd., valued at Rs. 13,56,921/-. Show cause notice was issued to M/s. Signora Texport Pvt. Ltd. Silvassa, who had issued these invoices and who had also supplied the goods and also to the director Shri Suryakant J. Shah of M/s. Shri Yogi Steel Pvt. Ltd. and Shri Ramesh Kumar Bundiwal, Manager-cum authorised signatory of M/s. Signora Texport Pvt. Ltd., requiring them to show cause as to why 34.54 M.T. of MS Ingots covered by two parallel invoices valued at Rs. 6,76,176/- should not be confiscated a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eipt of O.I.O. which was received by the director on 4-2-05 whereas the appeal was filed on 6-11-06. The appellant argued before Commissioner (Appeals) that no show cause notice was issued to them and no copy of the O.I.O. was sent to them and therefore they were not aware of any such order against them. Commissioner (Appeals) rejected his contention on the ground that the director of the appellant had received a copy of the show cause notice and also a copy of the O.I.O. He also rejected their contention that the delay hi filing appeal was on account of non-disposal of their application made before Ahmedabad Central Excise office requesting for refund of the amount deposited by them. The Commissioner (Appeals) also considered the issue on ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....were not a party before him. 5. Heard both sides. Both learned JDR and learned advocate on behalf of the party reiterate points in the appeal made by them which are discussed above. 6. I have considered the arguments advanced by both sides. The only issue to be decided is whether the appropriation of cash deposit made by Shri Yogi Steel Pvt. Ltd. at the time of provisional release of the seized goods is correct in law or not since there is no dispute about the issue of parallel invoices, dispatch and receipt of the goods covered by parallel invoices, subsequent payment of duty on the goods covered by duplicate parallel invoices. In this case, the goods were seized by the officers on 13/14-4-04 from factory of Shri Yogi Steel P. Ltd. N....