9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 837X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... September 28, 2012. 2. We propose to dispose of these two Special Civil Applications by this separate judgment. 3. The facts giving rise to filing of these applications may be summed up thus:- 3.1 The petitioners are merchant-exporters who have been purchasing unprocessed fabrics from the open market which are processed through independent textile processing units for exports, and rebate of the duties paid on the goods so exported is also claimed by the petitioners. During the period of June, 2004 to April, 2005, the petitioners purchased unprocessed fabrics from various weavers who were registered as weavers/manufacturers with the Central Excise Department, and the credit of the excise duties paid by such weavers as shown on their Centr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the weavers from whom unprocessed fabrics were procured had actually not paid and credited any amount as excise duty to the credit of the Central Government. 5. Being dissatisfied, the petitioners preferred a Revision before the Joint Secretary, Government of India who has affirmed the order of the Appellate Authority with slight modification as regards penalty. 6. Being dissatisfied, the petitioners have come up with these Special Civil Applications. 7. The main contention of the petitioners in these Special Civil Applications is that the transaction of the weavers being genuine and fully commercial, because the payment of such weavers was made through account payee cheques and the Central Excise invoices were also received by the peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e that the inputs or the capital goods in respect of which the appellants had taken credit of CENVAT are the goods on which appropriate duty of excise as indicated in the documents accompanying the goods, has been paid. We further pointed out that the Explanation added to Rule 7(2) even describes the instances which are the reasonable steps. In those cases, the appellants not having taken those steps, we held that the benefit of credit even though he is not party to the fraud, is not available. We also relied upon the case of Sheela Dyeing & Printing Mills P. Ltd. vs. C.C.E. & E, Surat-1 reported in 2008 (232) ELT 408. 10. In the cases before us, the petitioners have admittedly not taken the steps enumerated in the Explanation to Rule 7(2) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
