TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (6) TMI 151
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....from traders M/s. Karishma Overseas, who bought grey fabrics from the manufacturer M/s. Dhanlaxmi Textiles, who are registered with Central Excise Department and the registration No. is 370105/M/48/2003. The purchaser M/s. Karishma Overseas endorsed the invoice covering the goods in full in favour of the appellants and issued separate challans in addition to endorsement on the invoice. On this basis the appellants took cenvat credit in respect of 10 separate invoices. (b) On 17-3-2006, a statement was recorded from Sh. M.S. Lahoti, Director of the company. He was shown the Alert Circular dated 5-4-2005 issued by the CCE, Surat-I, which showed that M/s. Dhanlaxmi Textiles is non-existent. Shri Lahoti in his statement admitted that they have....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation of Rule 7(2) and therefore the credit had been taken correctly. He also stated that all these points were mentioned before the Adjudicating Authority but were totally ignored. However, the ld. Advocate also stated that the SCN is time-barred in view of the fact that RT12 returns filed for the relevant time had enclosed the copies of RG23A part-2 wherein the fact of taking credit for the supply of grey fabrics had been intimated to the Department. Therefore, the SCN issued in 2006 is clearly time-barred. The ld. Advocate relied upon the decision of Supreme Court in M/s. Pushpam Pharmaceuticals Company v. CCE, Bombay reported in 1995(78) E.L.T. 401 (S.C.) in support of his contention that the demand is time-barred. 4.1 The ld. DR Dr. R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... have to be taken in respect of the manufacturer, who have supplied the goods and he states that in both judgments cited by him viz, in the case of M/s. Sheela Dyeing & Printing Mills Pvt. Ltd. (Final Order No. A/431/WZB/Ah'bad/06 dated 1-12-2006) [2007 (219) E.L.T. 348] and M/s. Gayatri Silk Mills (Final Order No. A/2286/WZB/AHD/07, dated 6-9-2007) [2008 (231) RL.T. 497 (Tribunal)], this has been the view taken. 5. I have considered the submissions made by both the sides in detail. I find that the facts involved in the case of M/s. Sheela Dyeing & Printing Mills Pvt. Ltd., which was considered by the Tribunal in the order referred to above are almost same as in the present case, for the sake of convenience para-4 is reproduced below :- "....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n and it was concluded that the credit taken by the appellant was irregular and orders of the lower authorities were upheld. I also find that the cases quoted by the DR above are relevant. As argued by the ld. DR and also observed by the Tribunal above, the appellant in this case also has taken the credit on the basis of invoice issued by M/s. Dhanlaxmi Textiles and not on the basis of invoice issued by M/s. Karishma Overseas. It has to be noted that if Karishma Overseas were to be registered as a dealer, they could have independently issued the invoice themselves and credit could have been taken on that basis. In such an event, the appellants' claim that they have taken reasonable steps to ensure that duty has been paid on the goods receiv....