9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (5) TMI 501X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. It is also seen that apart from paying duty out of cenvat credit, the duty was also being paid out of PLA. 2. The appellants processed fabrics on behalf of one merchant manufacturer M/s. Jhanwar International. The said M/s. Jhanwar International filed 16 claims of rebate against ARE-1 and export documents of processed fabrics and obtained an amount of Rs. 41,10,416/- as rebate claim sanctioned from Divisional officers. However, subsequent investigations conducted by the department reveals that M/s. Jhanwar International was a non existent fictitious organisation and produced forged and fraudulent documents to support their rebate claim. 3. The present appeal relates to such two rebate claims (out of 16 claims) involving a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t supplied any processed fabrics to them. He has also dealt with the appellant s contention that if the transactions are sham and no processed fabrics were ever cleared, they should be refunded the duty paid on the final processed goods out of the PLA, and has observed that the said issue is an independent issue from the present proceedings and the only question, being availability of modvat credit is to be decided. The appellant is free to file refund claim for excess taxes paid by them. Accordingly, he held against the appellants. 8. I find that the issue is no more res-integra and stands settled by the Tribunal decision in the case of M/s. Shree Shiv Vijay Processors Pvt. Limited vs. CCE, Surat 2011 (264) ELT 540 (Tri. Ah ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the statutory records maintained by the appellant. There is no reason as to why the statement of Shri Ashok Jhanwar, which is in the nature of a statement of co-accused, should be preferred to the statement of Shri Dayakishan Agarwal. There is no corroborative evidence indicating that the maintenance of records by the appellant is not reflecting the correct position. Revenue has also not recorded the statement of any other person of the appellant indicating that in fact the grey fabrics were not received and processed. 7.In any case I find that the Revenue has sought to deny the deemed modvat credit availed by the appellant in respect of the grey fabrics received by them on the ground that no manufacturing process has taken place ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
