9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 143X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellants by issuing his own invoices with all these transactions fully reflected in his regular books of accounts and the payment received from the buyers. Further during the course of the adjudication statement of Sh. Surinder Vasudeva, Partner of the appellants, was recorded on 29-8-2007 wherein he confirmed having received the brass scrap from M/s. Saraswati Impex against the regular Cenvatable Invoices. The said scrap was entered in the RG-I Register along with credit entered in RG-II Register and stands utilized in the final product which was cleared on payment of duty. As per the Cenvat Credit Rules, a manufacturer is required to take reasonable steps about the supplier of the goods. In the present case, there is no dispute about the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid invoice issued by M/s. Saraswati Impex disclosed all the particulars including the source from where they have procured the material. 3. It is seen that M/s. Saraswati Impex purchased the goods from M/s. Ganpati Trade Links and M/s. Sulabh Impex Incorporation Delhi. Both the firms were registered with the department as dealers under the proprietorship of one Shri Sunil Kumar Mittal. 4. As a result of certain investigations conducted by the Revenue at the end of M/s. Ganpati Trade Links & M/s. Sulabh Impex, it was found that Sh. Sunil Kumar Mittal imported the brass scrap under proper bills of entries and the goods imported were directly dispatched to other persons from the port of Import. However, the credit of CVD and SAD was being a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It is also not the Revenue case that the brass scrap was not supplied by M/s. Saraswati Impex along with the Cenvatable invoices. The dispute lies at the end of the suppliers of goods to M/s. Saraswati Impex. It is further seen that the supplier of such goods i.e. M/s. Sulabh Impex Incorporation and M/s. Ganpati Trade Links were also having the Central Excise Registration as a Importer Dealer as per the statement of Sh. S.K. Mittal, who was the Proprietor of the said two Registered Dealers. He has stated that though he was holding Import Export Code, he was not owner of such goods. Statement of one Sh. Abhay Kumar, were also recorded during investigation wherein he stated that he has arranged goods on brokerage charges to M/s. Saraswati Im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the goods to him, has procured the same legally or not. In the present case, even the supplier of the goods of M/s. Saraswati Impex have stated that they have received the goods from the Registered Dealer under cover of Modvat Invoice. Any fraud, if any at the end of the first two Registered Dealers, cannot result in denial of credit to the appellant, who procured the goods directly from the Registered Dealer who has also accepted having received the goods from the first two Registered Dealers. 9. At this stage, I take note of the Tribunal's decision in the case of R.S. Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise - 2003 (153) E.L.T. 114 (Tri.-Del.). Dealing with identical situation, the Tribunal observed that fraudulent credit taken by in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
