9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (11) TMI 377X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... up together for a decision as they are interlinked. The brief facts of the case are as follows: 2. M/s. Omega Petro Products (P) Ltd. (in short OPPL), Trivandrum, are dealers in Superior Kerosene (SK). They either import SK or purchase it from various importers as per requirement. They have also been registered as first stage dealers. They entered into an Agreement with M/s. Travancore Titanium Products Ltd. (TTP), Trivandrum, for supply of SK at an agreed price. It was also agreed that the CVD paid by the importers on SK would be passed on to TTP so as to enable them to avail the same as CENVAT credit. Accordingly, they purchased SK from certain importers and sold 956 kl. to TTP under invoices and collected the price which included an a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Petroleum, Chennai; M/s. PAS Petro Organics, Chennai and M/s. Coromandel Petroleum Pvt. Ltd., Ernakulam for supply to TTP and their other customers. The details of the seven Bills of Entry under cover which the SK was imported are furnished below : Sl. No. Bills of Entry No. Date Quantity imported 1. 351/18-1-2001 2532 kl 2. 380/24-1-2001 700 kl 3. 381/25-1-2001 100 mt 4. 388/25-1-2001 100 mt 5. 638/12-2-2002 100 mt 6. 1134/15-3-01 100 mt 7. 837/23-2-01 100 mt 5. The 4 Bills of Entry viz. 1-4 in the above tabular column were mentioned in the invoices as parent Bills ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mported SK. Therefore, there is no justification in demand of Rs. 5,01,378/- from the appellant. The demand is set aside. However, there is clear evidence that the RG 23D Register has not been maintained properly and hence the imposition of penalty is just and proper. We uphold the imposition of penalty on the appellant. E/621/2003 8. The appellant, M/s. Travancore Titanium Products Limited, received SK from M/s. Omega Petro Products Ltd., Trivandrum and availed CENVAT credit of Rs. 8,88,075/- on the strength of 78 invoices issued by M/s. OPPL, the Registered dealer. The department issued Show Cause Notices for irregular availment of CENVAT credit on the following grounds : (i) The 78 invoices issued by the dealer were not proper ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce Book shall be pre-authenticated by jurisdictional Range Superintendent of Central Excise...... . 11. The learned Advocate contends that the requirements of the Notification have already been met and each invoice also carries the seal of the Superintendent. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the invoices are invalid documents. 12. As regards the second point, the learned Advocate submitted that the appellant had purchased SK from M/s. OPPL in 78 invoices whose parent Bills of Entry details are indicated below : Sl. No. Bill of Entry No. Qty. Imported Total No. of Invoices Total Qty. in invoices (a) 380/24-1-01 700 kl 17 204 kl (b) 388/25-1-0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the total quantity of SK received under all the 4 Bills of Entry was 3,476 kl. and the quantity supplied was only 934 kl. All the 4 imports were within a span of 5 days and it is quite possible that the supplier himself might have erred in correctly noting the Bills of Entry number in the invoices. Moreover there is no allegation in the Show Cause Notice that the supplier had procured the SK from a source other than from regular importers. Hence, he pleaded that the CENVAT availed should not be recovered for no fault of the appellant. 13. The learned SDR contended that the CENVAT availed for excess quantity is liable to be recovered as per law. 14. On a careful consideration of the issues involved, we find that the invoices have been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
