2017 (5) TMI 815 - AT - Central Excise

Clandestine removal - bogus invoices - According to the Revenue the Depot of the Dealer issued invoices/bills without transferring /dispatching goods covered under the said invoices/bills in the name of the assessee and other customers to facilitate clandestine removal of the goods produced by the assessee - Held that - the Revenue levied the charge of clandestine removal on the basis of various documents - the appellant did not refute the allegations with material evidences - there is no reason to interfere with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) - appeal dismissed - decided against Assessee.

Summary

Issues: Alleged evasion of Central Excise duty through clandestine removal based on trading invoices.

Analysis:
1. The case involved M/s. Bajrang Ispat Pvt. Ltd., accused of evading Central Excise duty by clearing goods under trading invoices issued by a dealer, M/s. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. The dispute arose from the transfer of finished goods from the dealer's factory to the depot, where some goods were further sold to the assessee.

2. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed a duty demand of ?20,20,256 along with interest and imposed penalties on both the assessee and the dealer. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the decision, leading to appeals before the Tribunal by both parties.

3. During the proceedings, the appellant argued that the invoices issued to the dealer's depot were legitimate and denied the allegations of clandestine removal. They cited Tribunal decisions and submitted a reconciliation statement not considered by lower authorities.

4. The Revenue contended that the dealer's depot issued invoices without dispatching goods to facilitate clandestine removal. The Commissioner (Appeals) found anomalies in the records, indicating goods were clandestinely manufactured by the assessee and sold under bogus invoices.

5. The Tribunal dismissed the appellant's arguments, noting the Revenue's evidence and the appellant's failure to refute the allegations with substantial proof. The Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner (Appeals) that the case laws cited by the appellants were not applicable to the present situation.

6. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, rejecting both appeals and affirming the duty demand, interest, and penalties imposed on the assessee and the dealer.

7. The appeals were dismissed by the Tribunal in an open court session on 11th May 2017, concluding the legal proceedings related to the alleged evasion of Central Excise duty through clandestine removal based on trading invoices.