9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (9) TMI 531X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls, the issue relates to denial of Modvat credit. Therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Shri J.S. Agarwal, learned Advocate has appeared on behalf of the appellants and Shri V.K. Verma, learned DR (now deceased) has appeared on behalf of the Revenue. The learned Counsel submitted that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of MS ingots falling under sub-heading 7206.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The period of dispute involved is 7-8-1990 to 12-12-1990 and the amount of Rs. 2,47,659.30 P wrongly availed by the appellants has been ordered to be recovered under Rule 57-I by the Additional Commissioner. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, has submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such as M/s. Balwinder Steel Corporation, M/s. Dee Kay Steel Corporation and M/s. Sonu Iron Store, Mandi Gobindgarh were found non-existent and even Sales-tax numbers mentioned on the invoices were fake as confirmed by the Excise Taxation authorities. Similarly, the party s contention that all the consignments of inputs received by them had crossed sales-tax barriers and the documents accompanying the inputs had duly been checked and stamped by the Sales-tax authorities carries no weight because of the fact that in reference to the enquiries caused from Sales-tax authorities at Shamboo Sales-tax barrier about entry into the State of trucks with registrations numbers as mentioned in the fictitious gate passes purportedly originating from c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n comparison to case cited by the appellants, in this case the witnesses of Mandi Gobindgarh were cross examined by the noticee which prove against them. Also letters written by the witnesses at Alang were supplied to the noticee. 5. The learned Counsel in rebuttal submitted that the lower authorities have erred in of placing reliance on the manufacturers as the same were recorded at the back of appellants and have refused to make themselves available for cross examination. It is also incorrect to say that the three units from whom the appellants had purchased the inputs on those gate passes, were found non-existent because during the period 1991, the appellants had purchased inputs from these three firms, Mandi Gobindgarh and against 34 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
