Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2004 (5) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2004 (5) TMI 372 - AT - Central Excise

Issues:
1. Modvat credit on steel scrap procurement from specific suppliers.
2. Allegations of clandestine operations and false production against suppliers and appellant.
3. Compliance with pre-deposit requirement for appeal.
4. Dispute regarding Modvat credit validity and duty demand.
5. Application of evidence against suppliers to appellant.
6. Lack of evidence supporting allegations and demand.
7. Limitation period for raising demand.
8. Sustainability of demand based on suppliers' fraudulent activities.
9. Evaluation of evidence and submissions by both parties.

Analysis:
1. The appellant procured steel scrap from specific suppliers and availed Modvat credit for duty payment on ingots produced. The dispute arose regarding the validity of Modvat credit taken on scrap procurement from these suppliers.

2. Allegations of clandestine operations and false production were made against the suppliers and the appellant. Show cause notices were issued, leading to an appeal challenging the adjudication order based on principles of natural justice.

3. The appeal was initially dismissed for non-compliance with pre-deposit requirements, but restoration was allowed upon deposit and subsequent hearing of both sides.

4. The dispute centered on the Modvat credit validity and duty demand related to steel scrap procurement from specific suppliers during a certain period.

5. The application of evidence against the suppliers to the appellant was contested, emphasizing the need for individual assessment of each transaction.

6. Lack of evidence supporting the allegations and demand was highlighted, with the appellant arguing that the evidence did not align with their transactions.

7. The appellant argued that the case was time-barred due to regular submission of records and absence of evidence of fraud.

8. The sustainability of the demand based on suppliers' fraudulent activities was debated, with the appellant emphasizing the lack of evidence supporting the allegations.

9. Upon evaluating the evidence and submissions, the Tribunal found that the Revenue's case against the appellant was not established. The appeal was allowed, and relief was granted to the appellant, including the return of pre-deposit and other payments made in relation to the demand, fine, and penalty.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates