TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (8) TMI 195
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly in detail in the Show-cause notice?" 4. Briefly, the facts are that a show-cause notices were issued to the respondent-assessees in all the aforesaid four appeals on 17-6-1999 with the allegations that they have contravened the provisions of rules 57A and 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (for short, 'the Rules') for having fraudulently availed Modvat credit to the tune of lakhs of rupees. The fraud came to the notice of the department during the course of inspection. On 22-7-1998, search was conducted on the premises of M/s. Shobhit Impex, Abohar, M/s. Gandhi Chem-fert Industries, Old Fazilka Road, Abohar and M/s. Gandhi Metal (P.) Ltd., Old Fazilka Road, Abohar on 23-7-1998. It was found that M/s. Shobhit Impex had a godown located at Chak Sidhu Complex, Malout Road, Abohar of the size of 12 feet X 18 feet where large quantity of imported copper scrap was claimed to have been stored. Statements of various persons were recorded. Surinder Kamra, Proprietor of M/s. Kamara Traders, who was also having a godown space at Chak Sidhu Complex, in his statement recorded on 23-7-1998 stated he never saw any movement of goods in the godown of M/s. Shobhit Impex. Similar were the st....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al Excise Rules, 1944 on noticee Sr. Nos. 13 and 14. Sr. No. Name of the party (M/s.) C.E. duty payable Amount of penalty imposed (Rs.) In words (Rs.) 1. Leader Engg. Works, Jalandhar 3,94,502.00 3,94,502 Three lakhs ninety four thousand five hundred and two only. ... ... ... 3. Vardhman India Products, Jalandhar 57,119.78 57,119 Fifty seven thousand one hundred and nineteen only. ... ... ... 6. Aman Engg. Works, Jalandhar 61,527.00 61,527 Sixty one thousand five hundred and twenty seven only. ... ... ... 12. V.K. Valves (P.) Ltd., Jalandhar 43,746.00 43,746 Forty three thousand seven hundred and forty six only." 6. Aggrieved against the order passed by the Commissioner, the assessees preferred appeals before the Tribunal, who relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CCE v. H.M.M Ltd. 1995 (76) ELT 497, accepted the appeals by holding that in the case in hand, the extended period of limitation in terms of section 11A of the Act cou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....p; ** ** (vi) M/s. Aman Engg. Works, Jalandhar holding Central Excise Registration No. J-II/Ch.90/117/92, under rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and engaged in the manufacture of water meters falling under Chapter Sub-heading 9028.00 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986) ** ** ** (xii) M/s. V.K. Valves (P.) Ltd., Jalandhar holding Central Excise Registration No. J-1/RBC/PBC/CH-84/l/95, under rule 174 of Central Excise Ru....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecords of M/s. Shobhit Impex, Abohar resumed from the premises of M/s. Gandhi Chem-fert Industries, Abohar reveal that: "(a) M/s. Shobhit Impex, Abohar have imported six consignments as per details given against S. Nos. 1 to 6 of Annexure 'A' (enclosed) of copper rods/copper scrap/brass scrap through Container Freight Station, Ludhiana since 1995. Modvatable invoices have been issued by M/s. Shobhit Impex, Abohar against these consignments to various buyers in Punjab under Rule 57 GG(3)(i) of the Rules. It appears that at the time of issuing of the said invoices, M/s. Shobhit Impex, Abohar had the conscious knowledge that the said invoices were fake and not genuine and were intentionally and wilfully issued to enable the manufacturer buyers to avail the credit of duty as shown in column 12 of the Annexure 'A'. By allowing the buyer manufacturer to take the credit wrongly/fraudulently, which was not admissible under the Rules and therefore M/s. Shobhit Impex, Abohai' have facilitated and abetted the evasion of Central Excise duty." [Emphasis supplied] 10. Section 11A(1) of the Act, which is extracted below, provides for recovery of duties not levied or not paid or short-levied....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on 1 (one) invoice issued by M/s Shobhit Impex, Abohar. However, as discussed in the previous paras, M/s Leader Engg. Works, Jalandhar have never received goods of invoice no.1 dated 28.4.98 issued by M/s Shobhit Impex. In fact as per the statement dated 25.7.98 of Sh. Jaspal Singhs/o Sh. Joginder Singh (Partner M/s Samra Transport Traders Ludhiana also partner M/s Ludhiana Trailor Syndicate upto 20.2.98), the goods corresponding to invoice no.1 were delivered to M/s Annapurna Impex (P) Ltd., Ludhiana. This fact has also been admitted by Sh. Navneet Aggarwal s/o Sh.Vinod Aggarwal, Director M/s Annapurna Impex (P), Ludhiana in his statement dated 25.7.98. Further Sh. J.K. Beri S/o Sh. P.N. Beri, Managing Director of M/s Leader Engg. Works, Jalandhar admitted in his statement dated 26.7.98 that they have received only the invoice and not the goods pertaining to the said invoice, in their factory. He has further stated that because of the forged/ fake documents issued by M/s Shobhit Impex, Abohar he was ready to debit/reverse the amount of modvat credit so availed. ** &....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 56 dated 26.12.97 issued by M/s Shobhit Impex, Abohar have not been received by M/s Aman Engg. Works, Jalandhar as Sh. Ashok Sharma S/o Sh. Des Raj Sharma Prop. M/s Aman Engg. Works, Jalandhar has admitted in his statement dated 31.7.98 that they had received only the invoice and not the goods pertaining to this invoice. He further admitted the incorrectness of invoice issued by M/s Shobhit Impex, Abohar and agreed to reverse the amount of Modvat credit so wrongly availed by him on the said invoice. ** ** ** I find that the amount of Rs. 61,527.04 is recoverable from them under Rule 57I(1) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and has already been debited by them in PLA vide E. No. 247 and 250 dated 31.7.98 and 1.8.98. They are also liable for penal action under Rule 57I(4) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 for contravention of aforesaid provisions of Central Excise Law. (xii) M/s V. K. Valves (P) Ltd., Jalandhar have availed modvat credit to the tune of Rs. 4....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to invoke the proviso to Section 11A(1), the show cause notice must put the assessee to notice which of the various commissions or omissions stated in the proviso is committed to extend the period from six months to 5 years. Unless the assessee is put to notice, the assessee would have no opportunity to meet the case of the department. The defaults enumerated in the proviso to the said sub-section are more than one and if the excise department places reliance on the proviso it must be specifically stated in the show cause notice which is the allegation against the assessee falling within the four corners of the said proviso." 13. In Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad v. M/s Chemphar Drugs & Liniments, Hyderabad, AIR 1989 SC 832 considering the issue of application of extended period of limitation under the Act, Hon'ble the Supreme Court opined that it would be a question of fact depending on the circumstances of the particular case as to whether the assessee had evaded on account of fraud, collusion or wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts or contravention of any provision of the Act. Relevant para thereof is extracted below: "8. Aggrieved thereby, the Revenue has ....