9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (5) TMI 722X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edit and issued fake invoices to pass on such fraudulent credit to others - penalty cannot be imposed under Rule 25 in such cases - requirement of pre-deposit waived for admission of the appeal - stay on collection of such penalty during the pendency of the appeal - E/3370, 3360, 3128, 3464, 3371/2010 - 585-589/2011-EX(PB), - Dated:- 25-5-2011 - Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar, Shri Mathew John, JJ. Shri G.K. Sarkar, Advocate, for the Appellant. Smt. Monica Batra, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Mathew John, Member (T)]. In this proceeding 5 Stay Applications in five different appeals are being considered together because the matters involved in these five appeals are connected. The main appeal is Appeal No. 3370/2010 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... supply of the goods with a view to facilitate fraudulent credit of duty shown to be paid. 5. The facts brought out in the SCN to prove the case against them are the following : (i) The yield of good quality final products, that is, weight of good quality products declared by them as a percentage of weight of raw materials (steel ingots) used for different periods is as under : S. No. Period Yield of goods declared as of good quality (%) 1 2001-02 92.63 2 2002-03 92.08 3 2003-04 92.66 4 2004-05 92.43 5. 1-4-2004 to 23-11-2004* 20.57 6. 24-11-2004 to 31-3-2005 41.89 * ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 26-7-2010 imposing a penalty of Rs. 64,85,299/ on the Appellant firm and Rs. 5,00,000/- on Shri. Sanjay Gupta, the partner of the firm. Aggrieved by the order the Appellants are before this Tribunal. 7. The arguments submitted by the Counsel for the Appellants are the following : (i) Revenue s case is based on assumptions and presumptions only and no actual proof of issue of any invoice without material; (ii) Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, is not applicable to the facts stated in the SCN because the case is that there were no goods sold under the invoices. Rule 25 is applicable when there are goods which are liable to confiscation. It is argued that the Appellants have not dealt with excisable goods and hence Rule 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ses booked against the Appellant in the past as listed in para 5 of the impugned order to point out the Appellants are habitual evaders and should not be treated leniently. 9. The argument that the Appellants did not deal with any goods is not correct. The case made out is that they manufactured goods of good quality described it as defective goods issued invoices to one party but sold the goods to somebody else. So the goods which were sold to the actual buyer was cleared other than under a proper invoice prescribed under the central Excise rules. So clearly the provisions of Rule 25 are applicable against the Appellant. So prima facie we do not find any merit in the argument of the Appellant. So we direct the appellant firm namely M/s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 088 58684 1174 59858 Total 121,955 2547773 305732 6114 311846 2. Paryag Ispat Project MGG A.K. Alloys (P)Ltd, Malerkotla 62,645 1458685 175042 3500 178542 3. Surinder Kumar Bharat Bhushan MGG Dutt Multimetals MGG 413,325 9631202 1155744 23117 1178861 4. Reena Ispat Udycg MGG Patiala Castings MGG 113,165 2069914. 243267 4865 248140 Raghav Alloys (P) Ltd 147,595 2781300 346524 6932 353456 Total 260,760 4914979 589799 11797 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... E-3160/2010 in Appeal No. E-3371 of 2010 15. These cause papers are filed by M/s. Prayag Ispat Project another Registered dealer who entered into paper transaction with M/s. Aggarwal Steel Rolling Mills Metal Industries. The reasons given in the case of M/s. Reena Ispat Udyog are applicable in the case of this appeal also. So we grant waiver of deposit of penalty imposed on this appellant also for admission of the appeal. There shall be stay on collection of the amount during pendency of the appeal. 16. The five stay applications are disposed of as per terms given above. 17. M/s. Aggarwal Steel Rolling Mills and Metal Industries and its partner, Shri Sanjay Gupta are required to report compliance on 25-7-2011. (Pronounced on 25-5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
