9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (4) TMI 771X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ho had availed Cenvat Credit on the basis of documents issued by the registered dealers. 3. Shri Vikram Kakaria, learned Advocate appeared on behalf of Chandigarh Steel Corporation and M/s. Rachna Steel Corporation. Shri Gagan Kohli, learned Advocate appeared on behalf of M/s. Jyoti Concast Steel Ltd. None appeared on behalf of other respondents. 4. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that M/s. Eastern Steel Agro Industries, Mandi Gobindgarh are registered with Central Excise authorities as manufacturer of Washer and Tikki, etc. They cleared scrap of iron steel on payment of duty under Central Excise invoices to various dealers and manufacturers. Registered dealers issued invoices to the manufacturer of final product on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t i.e. M/s. Eastern Steel Agro Industries as well as imposed penalty for wrong availment of credit by the dealers and manufacturers of final product. He further submits that the registered dealers only issued the invoice without any material and, therefore, penalties imposed upon them are justified. He also submits that the manufacturer of final product availed credit without receiving the goods on the basis of bogus invoices. 6. Learned Advocate on behalf of the respondents, submit that on the same set of facts another manufacturer of final product i.e. M/s. DCM Engg. Products availed credit on the basis of invoices issued by the same registered dealer who issued invoice on the strength of the manufacturer s invoice i.e. M/s. Eastern S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the manufacturer of input might have received the scrap along with invoices but not the scrap which was generated in their factory premises. Thus, the allegation against the respondents that scrap along with invoices was not received by the manufacturer of the final product is not sustainable. The main contention of the learned D.R. that the registered dealer issued the invoice without receiving the goods, is without any basis. I have also noticed that other show cause notices were issued on the same facts to the manufacturer of final product M/s. DCM Engg. Products. The Division Bench of the Tribunal vide Final Order No. 43/05-B dated 30-11-2004 dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. Finding of the Tribunal in the said case is r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
