Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2025 (7) TMI 1992

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of the suppliers who had provided documents etc. for wrong availment of credit to the said parties to the tune of Rs. 35.48 Lakhs. Therefore, by the impugned order penalty of Rs. 18 lakhs has been imposed on the Appellant. 2.3 Aggrieved appellant have filed this appeal challenging the penalty imposed on him. 3.1 The Appellant have filed this appeal challenging the penalties imposed. This matter has been listed on 20.05.2019, 27.06.2024, 27.08.2024, 24.09.2024, 05.11.2024, 06.12.2024, 10.01.2025, 22.04.2025 and today i.e. 15.07.2025 3.2 From perusal of the Order Sheets it is observed that on most of the occasions none have appeared. 3.3 Shri Kartikeya Narain who was appearing on behalf of the Appellant as noted in Order Sheet dated 22.04.2025 that he is not holding brief and was withdrawing his vakalatnama. Order Sheet dated 22.04.2025 is reproduced below:- "When the matter was called the learned Advocate Shri Kartikeya Narain submits that he is no more holding the brief and would be withdrawing his Vakalatnama. Registry is directed to send a copy of today's Daily Order to the Appellant by registered post and also by E-mail and place the dak delivery r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....company had filed the appeal before this Tribunal under Appeal No. Excise 666 of 2011 but the same was disposed as deemed withdrawn on the ground that the company has settled their case under SVLDRS-2019 Scheme. The present appellants were imposed penalty under Rule 26 for the charge of abatement in evasion of duty by the company. All the present appellants are Managing Director/ Director of the company. 5. I find that the fact of clandestine removal done by the company M/s Shree Sardar Co-operative Sugar Industries Limited is not under dispute as the company has issued parallel invoices on which no duty was paid. The transaction were also not booked properly in the books of accounts. Against the said parallel invoices, the company also received the payment which intentionally not shown in the sales account but shown as deposit against the respective customers, therefore, it clearly transpires that the company and its board under systematic modus operandi, carried out the clandestine removal of the excisable goods. As per the facts of this case, the entire modus operandi can only be done by the board of the company which includes all the directors, it is beyond imagin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e their case and adduce such evidence would be sufficient to charge the Noticee no. 1 and 2 with evasion and Noticee no. 4,5 and 10 with abetment of such offence and also of commission of offence under Rule 25 jbid. The evidence as already discussed shows the Noticee no. 6 had facilitated the misuse of the Cenvat credit facility by the Noticee no. 1 and 2. 7.42.1. I further observe that the case is made out against the above Noticees is on the basis of ample direct and circumstantial evidence as discussed in this Order hereinbefore. In view of the aforesaid discussions and in view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of D. Bhoormull (supra) as relied upon by various Courts and Tribunals in plethora of cases, I hold that the Noticee no. 4,5 and 10 have contravened the provisions of the Rules (supra) intentionally and thereby abetted the offence committed by the Noticee No. 1 and 2. 7.42.2. I also find that the offence committed by the Noticee No. 4,5 and 10 is akin in nature to the one committed by Noticee No. 3 but different in quantum. Accordingly, in view of the discussions and my findings in respect of the Noticee No. 4,5 and 10, 1 hold....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ong availment of Cenvat credit by M/s Shree ram Tubes Pvt. Ltd. 4.2 In the appeal of M/s. Nissan Copper Ltd, Shri Sanjay S Maradia, Proprietor of Balaji Transport & Shri Vinod Bhadra, partner of Bhadra Transport their roles are interlinked. Though it was shown that M/s. Nissan Copper have imported copper melting scrap, ingots, wire rods etc. purchased on high sea sale basis but the goods were not brought to their factory, instead they sold such inputs to various buyers situated at Bhiwandi, Pune etc. Investigation also revealed that M/s. Nissan Copper shown the purchase of several consignment of re-melted copper ingots/wire rods from importer of Delhi which cleared from ICD Tuglaqhabad and availed cenvat credit on the strength of bills of entry. It was shown to have sent some of such consignment to M/s. Shree Ram Tubes Pvt. Ltd for job work as well as issued cenvatable invoices to Shree Ram Tubes Pvt. Ltd for sale of such imported consignments of copper ingots and coppers wires without physical movement of such goods. 4.3 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Maradia, Vice Chairman of M/s. Nissan Copper in his statement dated 31-8-2007 admitted that actually no goods were transpo....