9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (8) TMI 106 - HC - Central ExciseBogus invoices- There was a charge on the assessee that he had availed cenvat credit on the basis of bogus invoices. it was confirmed by the tribunal. The assessee raised following issues before the court 1. Review order was no signed and authorized by the competent officer 2. Demand was time barred and other issues were related to facts. Regarding 1st issue court said that it is not case of the assessee, regarding 2nd issue court said Plea of limitation is not shown to have been raised before the Tribunal and there is no substantial question of law in other issues raised.
Issues:
1. Consideration of faulty Review Order Authorization by CESTAT 2. Validity of show cause notice for duty recovery under Central Excise Rules, 1944 3. Time-barred demand consideration by CESTAT 4. Authentication of invoices by Central Excise Officer 5. Defacement of invoices by the proper officer 6. Competency of review filed before the Commissioner 7. Substantial questions of law raised in the appeal Analysis: 1. The judgment involved two appeals, CEA Nos.121 and 122 of 2010, arising from a common order of the Tribunal. The first appeal, CEA No.121 of 2010, was filed by M/s Vipin Metal Works challenging the Tribunal's order. The appellant was engaged in manufacturing brass/copper/zinc sheets and circles and availed MODVAT/CENVAT facility. The investigation revealed that the credit availed by the appellant was based on bogus invoices. The Tribunal partially restored the order of the adjudicating authority, leading to the appellant's appeal. The appellant raised substantial questions of law regarding the faulty Review Order Authorization, validity of the show cause notice, time-barred demand, authentication of invoices, and defacement of invoices. 2. The appellant argued that the review filed before the Commissioner was not competent and that the show cause notice issued in 2004 was time-barred. The appellant contended that the Tribunal erred in not considering the authenticated invoice from M/s Capital Sales, Rewari, and the defacement of the invoice from M/s RK Enterprises, Faridabad. However, the Court found that the proposed questions were not substantial questions of law. It held that the review did not prejudice the appellant, the plea of limitation was not raised before the Tribunal, and questions related to facts about the genuineness of the invoices. 3. The Court concluded that no substantial question of law arose from the issues raised by the appellant in CEA No.121 of 2010. In the case of M/s Vijay Metal Works, CEA No.122 of 2010, the matter was remanded for re-determination of the duty demand based on documents related to credit on a specific quantity. The Court found that the questions raised in this regard were not substantial questions of law. Consequently, both appeals were dismissed as no substantial questions of law were found to arise from the issues raised in the appeals. 4. The judgment, delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Kumar Mittal, provided a detailed analysis of the issues raised in the appeals. It addressed the legal arguments presented by the appellant regarding the review, show cause notice, time-barred demand, authentication of invoices, and defacement of invoices. The Court carefully considered each issue and determined that none of the questions raised constituted substantial questions of law warranting further consideration. The judgment highlighted the importance of distinguishing between questions of law and questions of fact in legal proceedings.
|
