9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 531X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... >Shri D.P. Singh, J. REPRESENTED BY : Shri S. Suriyanarayanan, Advocate, for the Assessee. None, for the Department. [Order]. - These revision application are filed by M/s. Jhawar International, Supreme House, 1st Floor, 823/2, Road, No. 8, GIDC, Sachin, Surat, Gujarat, against the Orders-in-Appeal No. passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise & Customs, Surat-I, as mentioned in column No. 3 of following table : TABLE Sl. No. RAF. No. Order-in-Appeal No. & Date Name of manufacturer/processor Name of Grey Fabric Supplier Amount of rebate claim rejected (in Rs.) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) 1 195/547/09- RA RKA/76/SRT-I/2009 12-2-09 M/s. Sanjoo Prints Pvt. Ltd., 291, GIDC, Sachin, Surat. M/s. Shiv Textiles 1,25,038/- 2 195/548/09- RA RKA/77/SRT-I/ 2009 12-2-09 M/s. Sanjoo Prints Pvt. Ltd., 291, GIDC, Sachin, Surat. M/s. Shiv Textiles 1,12,640/- M/s. Rahul Textiles 3 195/549/09- RA RKA/78/SRT- I/2009 12-2-09 M/s. Vrindavan D. Mills Pvt. Ltd., Surat M/s. Radhe Silk, Surat 99,315/- Hari Fabrics, Surat 4 195/550/09- RA RKA/80/SRT- I/2009 12-2-09 M/s. Vrindavan D. Mills Pvt. Ltd., Surat M/s. Radhe Silk, Surat 3,47,571/- Hari Fabrics, Surat H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d also the processor proposing to reject claim of rebate relating to processed fabrics corresponding to fake invoices of grey fabrics. The notices also proposed penalty against the respective processors (the manufacturers). The notices were decided by the impugned relevant orders-in-original rejecting the above rebate claims. The grounds for rejection of the part rebate claim are that part of the grey fabrics was under invoices of fictitious and non-existent persons. 3. Being aggrieved by the said Order-in-Original, applicant filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeal) who rejected the same. 4. Being aggrieved by the impugned order-in-appeal, the applicant, party has filed these revision applications under Section 35EE of Central Excise Act, 1944 before Central Government on the following grounds:- 4.1 The department, in para 5 states that the Applicant is the supplier of the grey fabrics and has endorsed a fraudulent invoice. The applicant is also an exporter who has claimed rebate of such duty reflected on the fraudulent invoices endorsed by him but routed through the processor. That the department's stand is contradictory and it is settled law that an adjudicatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is quite probable that on repeal of erstwhile Section 12B in September, 2004, the grey weavers changed their names and shifted to different premises for evading income tax, etc. as the whole scheme of bringing the grey weavers under Cenvat Chain was opposed by them for months together in 2003. During the said agitation by grey weavers and subsequently, C.B.E. & C. went on relaxing/diluting the basic requirements in regard to registration. After completely diluting the process of registration, revenue cannot turn back in 2005 and declare all or most of the grey weavers as fake to escape in May and September, 2005. This amounts to revenue escaping from the consequences of its wrongs, omissions and commissions during February, 2003 to July, 2003 and the same is impermissible in law. It is settled law that nobody can take advantage of its own wrong. They relied upon the following case laws : ● Garima Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. C.C.E., Delhi-IV - (182) E.L.T. 106 (Tri.-Del.) ● Haryana Steel Alloys v. C.C.E., New Delhi - 2002 (148) E.L.T. 377 (Tri.-Del.) ● C.C.E., Chandigarh v. Sadashiv Casting (P) Ltd. - 2005 (187) E.L.T. 381 (Tri.-Del.) 4.7 That since there is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of evidential value in favour of the applicant herein. 9. The applicant has pleaded that they procured processed fabrics from the manufacturer and wrongly availed credit is to be recovered from manufacturer or the supplier of grey fabrics. The applicant being merchant exporter cannot be denied rebate as he had made payment of duty to the manufacturer. In this regard, it is observed that during investigation by department the suppliers of grey fabrics were found non-existent and accordingly vide Alert Circular issued by Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat-I, the said units were declared as fictitious. Nobody came forward to claim that suppliers were not fake units. Even, the applicant manufacturer has not challenged the said circular by arranging appearance of persons concerned or producing any affidavit from such persons to claim the existence of the said units. The adjudicating authority has held that the exporter cannot escape his responsibility under the Rules on the pretext that he was not involved in bogus transactions. These finding of lower authorities clearly establish that manufacturer and exporter are in hand and gloves and can be said as related having interest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
