9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (12) TMI 620X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with equal amount of penalty and erroneous Cenvat credit of Rs. 1,30,30,271/- and a penalty of Rs. 1,82,13,413/- and penalties under central excise rules, as well as customs act. The facts of the case in brief are as follows : 2. M/s. Meenakshi International was sanctioned a rebate of Rs. 46,66,410/- on the basis of 15 claims showing exports of processed man made fabrics. Subsequent investigation revealed that the shipping bills were fake; the name of the custom house agent shown in the shipping bill was wrong since the custom house agent stated that he was not concerned with the export at all; the bills of lading were also found to be bogus as confirmed by the statement of the shipping agent and the address of the supplier manufacturer s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication process, the Commissioner has demanded erroneous rebate and erroneous Cenvat credit from the appellants, imposed penalties on the appellants as well as officers of the revenue Department. 3. Heard both the sides. The learned advocate on behalf of the appellants submits that erroneous rebate sanctioned to Meenakshi International cannot be recovered from the appellants jointly and severally in view of the fact that Section 11A of the Central Excise Act does not provide for recovery of such amount from the actual beneficiaries. He also submits that section does not provide for recovery of the amount from more than one person. The words used on the Section are, the manufacturer or the person to whom rebate claim was erroneously sanct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d and they were no exports whatsoever. The supplier manufacturers of fabrics, which were supposed to have been exported are non-existent, the person who is supposed be the owner of the firm, which exported the goods was initially an employee but subsequently a non-existent person s name was given by the appellants. Even the retraction of the statements was made after four months, and Commissioner has rightly observed that the statement, which contains elaborate details of the methods adopted by the appellants for getting the rebate sanctioned, along with the records and evidences gathered by the Revenue show that the retraction was only an afterthought. And the admission statements originally given by the appellants has to be considered as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsidering the fact that Shri Tejas Desai has already deposited an amount of Rs. Three lakhs, we order that he should make a pre-deposit of Rupees Seven lakhs and Shri Amit Murari Lal Agarwal should make a pre-deposit of Rupees 10 lakhs, within eight weeks from the data of this order, and the case shall come up, for reporting compliance on 24-2-2009. 5. As regards the other appellants, who are the departmental officers, Shri R.R. Meena, Shri Rakesh G. Agarwal and Shri Rajeev C. Nanda, the Commissioner has found that they had actually signed in the ARE-1 in the month of May but anti dated showing on April 2004, thereby enabling the beneficiaries of bogus rebate claims to create bogus shipping bills and other relevant documents. He has also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
