TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 294
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ization of irregular CENVAT Credit by showing procurement of their raw materials i.e., M.S. Scrap, from one of their dealers, namely, M/s. Shyam Sky Steel, Kolkata, without receipt of any goods physically from the said dealer and was also engaged in issuing central excise invoices only to the said dealer without supplying any goods. 3. On 17.01.2017, the factory premises of the respondent was searched and during the course of search and scrutiny of records / documents, it was found that the respondent, during the period 2014-15, had availed CENVAT Credit amounting to Rs.97,93,739/- on the strength of invoices issued by M/s. Shyam Sky Steel. It was further found that the respondent were also issuing invoices in favour of M/s. Shyam Sky St....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Commissioner, Central Tax, CGST Bolpur, the same does not appear to be legal, proper and correct in respect of dropping the proceedings against the demand of Rs. 1,28,39,192/- (including cess) without actual dispatch of any goods viz. TMT BARS during the F.Y. 2014-15 (May,2014 to Feb,2015). (ii) That the instant issue was based on two different aspects i.e. (1) the assessee issued the invoices involving duty of Rs.1,28,39,192/- against TMT Bars weighing 3360.400 MTs, without supply thereof and (2) the stock of quantity Le. 3360.400 MTs has been cleared by the assessee as per Stock Register. (iii) That the said quantity of 3360.400 MTs is equal to the quantity for which invoices were issued to the said dealer. However, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....registers evidencing the removal (i.e. reducing the stock level of produced quantity) and the said quantity of 3360.400 MTs had not been supplied to the said dealer, and therefore such removal of 3360,400 MTs shall be clandestine to the buyers by way of suppression of facts and the said stock remained non-duty paid and supplied. (viii) That neither the assessee nor Noticee No.3 have retracted their statements recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. (ix) That the assessee has failed to produce any documentary evidence showing the movement of the impugned goods. The assessee stated that they were selling the goods at ex-factory whereas Noticee No.3 has stated regarding non-receipt of any goods from the ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rge except the copies of invoices/payment details, under consideration, for which Noticee No.3, has categorically stated about non-receipt of the said goods along with the said invoices. Therefore, vide para 4.25 of the OIO the adjudicating authority has erred in accepting the clearances made by the assessee to the buyers other than the said dealer without payment of Central Excise duty and without observing Central Excise procedures. 7. The Ld. Consultant appearing on behalf of the respondent supported the impugned order. 8. Heard the parties and considered their submissions. 9. We find that in this case, the sole allegation against the respondent is that although they have issued invoices, the goods have not been sent to the deal....