9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (3) TMI 1216 - AT - Central ExcisePenalty under Rule 209A - noticee had procured ship breaking scrap from various ship breakers including the appellant and without receipt of the goods, took credit of the duty paid on the scrap - Held that - As in the invoices supplied by M/s.Rishi Ship Breakers, the vehicle numbers mentioned are of non-goods carrier, such as scooters/motor cycles - M/s.Rishi Ship Breakers could not satisfactorily explain the discrepancies noticed in the invoices - Decided against the assessee
Issues: Allegation of procuring ship breaking scrap, imposition of penalty under Rule 209A of Central Excise Rules, 1944.
Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed by M/s.Rishi Ship Breakers against the order-in-original passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane-II. The allegation was that M/s.Viraj Alloys Ltd. procured ship breaking scrap from various suppliers, including the appellant, without receiving the goods but still claiming duty credit. The appellant was accused of issuing invoices with non-existent or inappropriate vehicle numbers, indicating a failure to supply the goods as per the consignee's address. A penalty of Rs.8,500/- was imposed on M/s.Rishi Ship Breakers by the adjudicating authority under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 2. A previous Tribunal order had confirmed duty demand and imposed penalties on various scrap suppliers, including ship-breakers, due to discrepancies in invoices regarding vehicle numbers. The current case involving M/s.Rishi Ship Breakers presented similar facts, where invoices listed vehicle numbers of non-goods carriers like scooters/motorcycles, raising doubts about the proper supply of scrap. The inability of M/s.Rishi Ship Breakers to explain these discrepancies led to the conclusion that they were liable for penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 3. The Tribunal rejected the appeal of M/s.Rishi Ship Breakers based on the consistent discrepancies in the invoices related to vehicle numbers, indicating a failure to comply with the requirements for proper supply of scrap. The decision upheld the imposition of the penalty under Rule 209A, emphasizing the importance of accurate documentation and adherence to regulations in the supply chain of goods.
|
