9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 833X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d fake and not signed by any officer of the Commercial Tax Department. Further M/s.Essel Transport purportedly transported 14 consignments valued at Rs.7,50,26,665/- (approx.) to consignees in Chattisgarh and Orissa, but on enquiry M/s.Essel Transport was found to be a bogus firm. From the facts and circumstances of the case narrated above that the issue involved relates of appreciation of evidences produced by both sides which can be taken up at the time of disposal of their appeals. However, at this juncture , keeping in view the above facts, prima facie, we are of the opinion that the Applicants have not been able to make a case for full waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty. In these circumstances keeping in view the interest of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cate makes the prayer to decide their Stay Petition afresh. 3. We find that in this case a show cause notice was issued to the Applicant alleging therewith that M/s.Devis Manufacturing Works i.e. the Applicant No. 1 availed irregular credit of CENVAT on various inputs which they never received physically in their factory premises and utilized the said irregular credit for payment of duty on the finished goods clerared by them. The show cause notice was adjudicated by the Ld.Commissioner confirming the demand of Rs.2,64,80,578/- for the period June, 2007 to July, 2008 along with the interest at the appropriate rate and imposition of penalty of an amount equal to duty each on the Applicant firm as well as its Proprietor, Shri Bijoy Gupta. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2005 (179) E.L.T. 276 (SC) And (ii) Didar Steel Complex Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Ludhiana 2006(8)LCX0033, the Tribunal in its final order No.1251/06-SM(BR.) Wherein under similar circumstances availment of credit held to be allowable. The Ld.Advocate took the plea of financial hardship in case the pre-deposit is not waived. However, he could not produce any evidence like balance sheet, income tax return etc. justifying the same. 5. The Ld.A.R. for Revenue reiterated the findings of the Ld. adjudicating Commissioner. He submitted that the facts of the present case are distinguishable from the facts of the case laws cited by the Ld. Advocate. 6. We find that the Ld.adjudicating Commissioner has analysed the various evidences and arr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . showing the receipt of the inputs/materials in their factory premises. He has further observed that the assessee declared their working capital to be Rs.5.00 Lakhs in the Application for registration. This does not justify the purchase of raw materials worth Rs.1.5 Crore in July 2007 at the start of the business. Shri Bijoy Gupta, Proprietor though claimed to have got advance from his customers did not provide name of any such customers. Shri Gupta stated to have received the advance from one Bhumi Profiles, but he did not provide the address of that company. As regards sale of the finished goods by the Applicant, it is the findings of the Ld.Commissioner that almost all the transporters (except M/s.Golden Roadways Corpn. who confirmed to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
