9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 552X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with the authorities. The contentions of the Ld. Departmental Representative that the appellant was aware that the fabric manufacturers were non-existence or fake is not borne out from any of the records available before us in as much as, there is no statement recorded of the proprietor of the appellant or any employee. It is also seen from the impugned order that the appellant herein had sought cross examination of the persons who had signed the invoices issued by the fabric manufacturer to these six processors and a claim was made that the said manufacturers are still in existence. This vital submission was not followed up by the lower authorities, in order to establish that the appellant had knowledge of non-existence of these six proces ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on M/s. Rainbow Dyeing Printing Mills Pvt. Ltd. and (ii) the Cenvat Credit availed on the invoices raised by following parties: (i) M/s. Vandana Art Prints Pvt. Ltd., (ii) M/s. Archana Dyeing Printing Mills Pvt. Ltd., (iii) M/s. Pratigtya Processors, (iv) M/s. Shree Saibaba Silk Mills, (v) M/s. Omkar Syn Fab Pvt. Ltd., (vi) M/s. Shiv Shakti Printing Pvt. Ltd. He would submit that the Cenvat Credit availed on the invoice issued by M/s. Rainbow Dyeing Printing Mills Pvt. Ltd. is sought to be denied on the ground that the Superintendent of Central Excise, Range V, Division V of Surat-I Commissionarate has stated that M/s. Rainbow Dyeing Printing Mills Pvt. Ltd. has surren ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... question i.e. May 2004 to February 2005. He would draw our attention to the ratio of their Lordships as indicated in paragraph 12 13 of the judgment. 4. Ld. Departmental Representative on the other side would submit that in respect of the Cenvat Credit availed in the case of M/s. Rainbow Dyeing Printing Mills Pvt. Ltd., the matter may be remanded back for further verification. 4.1. It is his submission that as regards to Cenvat Credit availed on the invoices issued by other processors, he would draw our attention to the reply / the submissions made by the appellant before the adjudicating authority and specifically draws our attention paragraph 4, 5 and 6. He would then submit that the appellant herein in the submissions has acce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edit are hit by limitations as per the judgment of Prayagraj Dyeing Printing Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Supra). 6. We considered the submissions made at length of both sides and perused the records. 7. The issue that needs to be decided in this case in hand, is whether the appellant is to be saddled with demand of the Cenvat Credit availed by them on the invoices which were issued by the processors while availing Cenvat Credit on the invoices which were issued by fabric manufactures who were non-existing during the relevant period. 8. As regards the issue in the case of M/s. Rainbow Dyeing Printing Mills Pvt. Ltd., we find that the issue needs reconsideration as the entire case of denial of Cenvat Credit of approximate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t there is no dispute as to the fact that the appellant had filed monthly returns for the period May 2004 to February 2005 with the authorities. The contentions of the Ld. Departmental Representative that the appellant was aware that the fabric manufacturers were non-existence or fake is not borne out from any of the records available before us in as much as, there is no statement recorded of the proprietor of the appellant or any employee. It is also seen from the impugned order that the appellant herein had sought cross examination of the persons who had signed the invoices issued by the fabric manufacturer to these six processors and a claim was made that the said manufacturers are still in existence. This vital submission was not follow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ort from the following decisions of the Supreme Court: (i) CCE v. Chemphar Drugs Liniments, reported in 1989 (40) E.L.T. 276. (ii) Padmini Products v. Collector of Central Excise, reported in 1989 (43) E.L.T. 195. (iii) Lubrichem Industries Limited v. CCE, Bombay, reported in 1994 (73) E.L.T. 257. (iv) Nesle (India) Limited v. CCE, Chandigarh, reported in 2009 (235) E.L.T. 577. 13. We thus find substance in the contention of Mr. Parikh that in the case before us, in the absence of any allegation that the appellants were parties to the fraud, the larger period of limitation cannot be applied, and thus, even if the original document was assumed to be issued by practising fraud, the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
