9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 429X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant. Prashant Patankar for the Respondent. ORDER 1. Heard both sides. 2. The Revenue is in appeal against the order-in-appeal No. AGS(187) 05/09 dated 20.08.2009 whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the lower adjudicating authority's order dropping the proceedings against the respondent. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the respondent is engaged in the manufacture of M.S. ingots/Billets falling under Chapter No. 72 of Central Excise Act, 1985. The respondent also avails CENVAT credit of duty paid on inputs and capital goods. On the basis of proceedings against Simandhar Steel Movers (I) P. Ltd. and Simandhar Enterprises, they were alleged to have been passing CENVAT credit fraudulently by procuring ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal's decision in the case of Darshan Industries v. CCE 2004 (178) ELT 345 (Tri. - Mumbai) and in the case of CCE v. Sundesh Springs (P.) Ltd. [Final Order No. 1619-1621/2008-SM (BR), dated 10-12-2008]. 4. The learned Advocate reiterated the findings of both the lower authorities and submitted that the goods have been moved along with the invoices and they had reversed the modvat under protest. Therefore, the lower authorities' orders do not suffer from any infirmities. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions and perused the records. 6.1 This is a second round of litigation. Earlier, the Tribunal has remanded the case to the lower appellate authority to pass a speaking order on all the issues. The learned Commissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence in order to demolish the above findings of the lower authorities. So far as the contention of the learned JDR is that Shri M.D. Sharma has admitted that they have availed credit on invoices issued by the dealers viz. Simandhar Steel Movers (I) P. Ltd. and Simandhar Enterprises., Ltd. The relevant portion of the statement is reproduced here-in-under:- "Ans.: As it is proved that the invoices issued by these two traders mentioned in Question No. 5 above are fraudulent we are agreed to reverse the inadmissible credit total Rs. 83,119/- under protest." 6.3 It is pertinent to note that expression 'fraudulent' forming part of the statement does not figure in the show-cause notice. So far as the Tribunal's decision in the case of Darsh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
