9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (7) TMI 507X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... users, as per the five show cause notices, which are the subject matter of this appeal, and was, therefore, held liable for penal action by the adjudicating authority, who had imposed a penalty of Rs. 35,548/- on the appellant, which was a sole-proprietory concern of Shri Yashpal Gupta. According to the Revenue, the end-users, to whom the show cause notices were issued, were manufacturers of excisable goods, and in contravention of the provisions of Rule 57A and 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, they had wrongly availed Modvat credit on the basis of void invoices issued by the appellant as a second stage dealer on the strength of the invoices issued by Majestic Industries Ltd. No goods were in fact sold under these modvatable invoices ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he confirmed the statement earlier made on 15-9-2000. The Managing Director of M/s. Majestic Industries Ltd., Shri N.K. Gupta, gave evasive response in his statements dated 4-12-2000 and 23-2-2001, when he was asked to comment on the finding that a large number of vehicles, said to have been used for transporting their goods as mentioned in their sale invoices, were proved to be non-transporting vehicles, such as, scooters, mopeds, cars etc. and some of the owners of trucks, mentioned in the invoices, had denied their involvement. On the basis of the material on record, the authorities below came to a finding that, the invoices in question, said to have been issued by Majestic Industries Ltd., were mere paper transactions and no goods were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... admitted having received only the modvatable invoices from M/s. Majestic Industries Ltd. and having subsequently acted as a second stage dealer for passing on the benefit of Modvat credit, even though the goods were not received under the invoices from Majestic Industries Ltd. The Appellate Commissioner confirmed the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on the appellant under Rule 173-Q(i)(bbb) read with Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 5. In all these appeals, the learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that, there was no corroboration from any independent evidence to show that the goods were not sent under the invoices, which were issued by Majestic Industries Ltd. He submitted that, merely on the basis of admission made by the par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... H.R./C.R coils/sheets. It has also come on record that, though no sufficient stock was available in the RG-23D Register of the manufacturer, invoices were issued. The inquiries from the owners of the truck, in which the goods were alleged to have been transported as per the invoices, revealed that the trucks mentioned in the invoices for transportation of CR strips to Hoshiarpur did not actually transport the goods. The owners of the vehicles have stated that, their vehicles were engaged elsewhere on different routes on the days in question. The signatures on the octroi receipts were disowned. These facts lend ample corroboration, if at all needed, to the clear admission of Shri Yashpal Gupta, sole-proprietor of the appellant, that he recei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
