2012 (11) TMI 520

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tc., from various suppliers including M/s. Amit Steel Traders, Mandi Govindgarh, a registered dealer of such goods. Investigations conducted at the end of M/s. Amit Steel Traders showed that they were issuing invoices without supply of materials thus enabling the person purchasing invoice to take fraudulent Cenvat credit. The main evidence in this regard was the fact that the transport companies which were supposed to have issued the GRs were non-existent. Further in some cases the vehicle numbers were that of oil tanker, scooter, etc., which could not have carried the goods in question. 3. Statement of Shri Sajjan Kumar, Proprietor of Amit Steel Traders, was recorded wherein he admitted that in many cases the material was sold to SSI .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on the following decisions : (i)      Mahesh C. Kadia v. C.C.E. - 2007 (217) E.L.T. 223 (Tri.-Mumbai); (ii)    Rajeev Alloys Ltd. v. C.C.E. - 2009 (236) E.L.T. 124 (Tri.-Del.) upheld by Punjab & Haryana High Court as reported at 2009 (247) E.L.T. 27 (P&H). He argues that in this type of cases, each case should be appreciated on the basis of facts of the case. The facts of the case would clearly show that the cenvat credit in question was fraudulently taken. 9. I have examined the decision of the Honourable High Court in the case of Neepaz Steel Ltd. (supra). In that case the High Court held that it was a case involving dispute of facts only and since there was no question of law involved the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to take credit payment for such transaction through cheque is to be considered as part of manipulation only. Since the dispute is that the goods were not transported and the fact that the transporters were paid in cash does not help the case of the Respondent. Further the argument that the inputs were used in manufacture and final products cleared on payment of duty cannot be accepted on face value in the absence of ratio of weight of final products to inputs used. When Revenue has prima facie made out a case that goods were not received in the factory of the Respondent, the burden to prove otherwise had shifted to the Respondent and no concrete facts to prove their claim has been put forward. In the case of Neepaz Steel the mode of payment .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X