9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 871X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the final product manufactured out of it does not in any way prove that duty was paid on the raw material – decided against Assessee. - E/302/2011 - - - Dated:- 1-3-2013 - Mathew John, J. For the Appellant : None For the Respondent : Shri P Arul, Supdt.-AR. PER : Mathew John In this appeal, the dispute is about Cenvat credit amounting to Rs.1,07,900/- taken during the period from 19.09.2006 to 24.11.2006 on scrap of Mild Steel bought by the appellant from second stage dealers. Investigation by Revenue showed that some of the documents received from M/s. Leadsman Enterprises and M/s. Amman Steels, who were second stage dealers, based on which credits were taken did not relate to the goods that were received. The officers ve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant is trying to prolong the matter without justifiable reasons. Therefore, the case was taken up for final disposal. 3. Heard the Ld AR for Revenue and I have gone through the records of the case. The investigation by Revenue showed that the second stage dealers obtained invoices showing purchase of MS Wire Coils from Sri Karpagam Steels Coimbatore. Against duty payment shown in such invoices, the dealers supplied Scrap to the appellant showing duty payment. Shri K. G. Venkatesan, Manager and Authorised Signatory of the appellant, in his statement dated 28/03/2008 stated that they had obtained only scrap and they did not notice that the goods were described as MS Wires in the invoice. He also stated that he did not notice that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... invoices and cleared the manufactured goods on payment of duty. Even the department came to know about the irregularity only after considerably long investigation. So, the appellant could not have been expected to be aware of the mischief and there is no fraud on the part of the appellant and hence, the order of the lower authority is not sustainable. 7. The Ld. AR for Revenue submits that his is a case of clear fraud on Revenue. From the face of the document based on which credit is taken it is very obvious that the transaction is fraudulent because there is no pima facie reason as to why the selling price should be lower than the buying price and why the description of goods should be different from the actual nature of the goods receiv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
