9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 390X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he grant of fraudulent rebate, 71 firms at Surat were found to be bogus and nonexistent. In this view of the matter, the basis upon which the Joint Secretary to the Government of India allowed the claim for rebate was wholly erroneous. The Revisional Authority would have due regard to the parameters of the jurisdiction under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944. According to the Revenue, in these cases no excise duty was as a matter of fact paid. Cenvat credit was accumulated on the basis of fraudulent documents of bogus firms and such credit was utilised to pay duty. Since there was no accumulation of Cenvat credit validly in law, there was no question of duty being paid therefrom. This submission warrants serious consideration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt of Mumbai. On a scrutiny of the claims, the Department claims to have noticed that the First Respondent had submitted duty paying certificates in loose/open condition. A reference was accordingly made to the jurisdictional Central Excise authority at Surat. The Range Superintendent in the Commissionerate at Surat reported by his communication dated 10 February 2006 that the processor (Jai Krishna Prints) had taken Cenvat credit on the basis of invoices of a grey material supplier, Ganpati Textile, Surat. An alert circular had been issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise at Surat on 22 September 2005 pointing out that as many as 71 firms, including Ganpati Textile, were nonexistent and bogus. A notice to show cause had been issued on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... parties. As a matter of fact, the Revisional Authority had noted that if a charge in regard to want of bonafides had existed, then despite the purchase of goods by the merchant exporters on the basis of Central Excise documents/invoices showing duty payment, the transaction would be vitiated. In the present case, it is sought to be urged, that as a matter of fact, the investigation which was conducted in the matter involving the merchant supplier had disclosed that it was the exporter, the First Respondent, who had supplied the Grey Fabrics. The statement of the partner of Jai Krishna Prints was that he had not received the Grey Fabrics directly from the dealer or manufacturer, but he had received it through the exporter. 5. On the oth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 28 April 2008 of the Joint Commissioner confirming the demand in respect of the Cenvat credit wrongly availed of, penalty and interest. The order noted that the admitted position was that the unit did job work and had not received Grey Fabrics directly from the manufacturers but through the exporter. In Appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) by an order dated 1 September 2009 modified the order. Upon a further Appeal by the department, the CESTAT remanded the matter back to the original Adjudicating Authority. 7. The reason why we have adverted to the aforesaid facts, is that the Revisional Authority proceeded on the basis that there was no allegation of a want of bonafides on the part of the First Respondent. This assumption of the R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
