9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 609X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as being procured by them from two registered dealers - M/s Jagruti Resins Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon and M/s Shree Sai International (second stage dealer), Faridabad). Sh. Awadh Pratap Narayan Singh is the CEO of M/s Shree Sai International and Sh. Arvind K. Doshi is CEO of M/s Jagruti Resins (P) Ltd. Jitender Kumar is Authorised Signatory of M/s Jagruti Resins (P) Ltd., Shri S.N. Daga is the Authorised Signatory of M/s Sharad Electronics and Sh. Sharad Mohta S/o Sh. G.D. Mohta is the person incharge of M/s Sharad Electronics. The departments allegation against M/s Sharad Electronics, main appellant facing the cenvat credit demand; is that during the period of dispute they have taken cenvat credit of Rs. 34,12,606/- on the basis of 51 invoices is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ancies in the records maintained by the vehicle driver. In the six cases where no enquiry was made, the departments case is that the weight of the goods was much more than the carrying capacity of the vehicle. It is on this basis show cause notice was issued. The jurisdictional Additional Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 22.06.2012 confirmed the cenvat credit of Rs. 34,12,606/- against M/s Sharad Electronics alongwith and interest and besides imposition of penalty of equal amount on them under Section 11AC, penalty of following amounts was imposed on the other noticees under Rule 26: i) Sharad Mohta Rs. 20 lakhs ii) S.N. Daga Rs. 20 lakhs iii) M/s Jagruti Resins (P) Ltd. Rs. 31,95,632/- iv) Arvind K. Doshi Rs. 20 lakhs v) Jite ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of M/s Jagruti Resins (P) Ltd. and the owner of the remaining vehicles have confirmed having transported the goods of M/s Jagruti Resins (P) Ltd.; that the cenvat credit involved in respect of the goods shown to have been transported in truck No. HR 38F 3612 is only Rs. 28,000/-; that denial of cenvat credit in respect of the invoices mentioning the other vehicle numbers is without any basis as the same is sought to be denied either on account of discrepancy in the records maintained by the driver or there being mismatch between the capacity of the vehicle and the quantity mentioned in the invoices, that no statement has been recorded of the drivers, and that in view of this, except for demand of Rs.28,000/- the remaining cenvat credit dema ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... basis of bogus invoices. 6. I have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. In this case, cenvat credit is sought to be denied mainly on the basis of enquiry conducted with the transporters. The major demand is on the basis that the weight of the goods mentioned in the impugned invoices is much more than the weight which the vehicles can legally carrying and hence the goods covered under these invoices have not been transported. Prima-facie, this ground for denying the cenvat credit is doubtful. In other cases, the denial of cenvat credit is on the basis that on the date of supply as mentioned in the invoices, the transport of the goods covered by the invoices is not mentioned in the diaries maintained by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
