9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 791X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n manufacturers located elsewhere in India and engaged in fraudulent issuance of Cenvatable invoices of alloy steel bars & rods, AS/MS Billets, Rounds, Carbon steel Billets & Ferro alloys and passing of irregular CENVAT Credit to various manufacturers/dealers located at Chandigarh, Faridabad & Rohtak etc. without dispatching any goods to them. M/s Arvind Enterprises, B-203, 1st floor, Nehru Ground, Faridabad (hereinafter referred as 'dealer') is one of the dealer recipient of such fraudulently issued Cenvatable Invoices without accompaniment of corresponding goods. The investigation further revealed that M/s Arvind Enterprises, B-203, 1st floor, Nehru Ground, Faridanad had further issued 12 cenvatable invoices involving Cenvat Credit of Rs.98,000/- to M/s Advance Engineers, Faridabad, (hereinafter referred as 'manufacturer') on the strength of fraudulent invoices issued by HSAL & manufacturer availed cenvat credit on the said invoices. 3. Shri Ramesh Rawat, Executive Director of HSAL in his statement dated 29.6.2006, tendered under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, admitted said facts of fraudulently issuance of Cenvatable invoices without supply of goods. Shri Arvind Ti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... p; I find that show cause notice describes that Shri Ramesh Rawat, Director HSAL, in his statement tendered under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, has clearly admitted that they had only issued Cenvatable invoices to the manufacturer/dealer and no goods were accompanied with their invoices. The show cause notice further revealed that Sh. Arvind Tiwari authorized person of dealer firm, in his statement tendered under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, on seeing the statements of Shri Ramesh Rawat, Director of HSAL, has also stated that in light of evidence shown to his, he could say that material supplied to them by the broker may not have been manufactured by HSAL. He further stated that they received the goods through broker and they did not verify manufacturers details appearing on the invoices issued by the HSAL. On inquiry, he could not intimate the address or telephone numbers of the broker and only stated that broker was resident of Hisar. The show cause notice also described that Sh. A.K Bhist of Advance Engineers, in his statement tendered under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, on being asked whether they ensured that they r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pugned order, I find that entire case of the Revenue is based upon the statement of Shri Ramesh Rawat, Executive Director, HSAL. It stands deposed in the said statement of Shri Rawat that in respect of certain items, he was only issuing the invoices and was not supplying the goods. The said statement of Shri Rawat does not stand agreed upon by the two dealers, i.e., M/s. Arvind Enterprises and M/s. Avon Steels. In his statement Shri Arvind Tiwari, authorized signatory of said two dealers have clearly deposed that they were receiving the goods from HSAL along with the invoices. It is not the Revenue's case that HSAL was not manufacturing the raw material or were clearing/diverting their final product to other persons. Further the statement of Shri Tiwari stands corroborated by the statement of Shri K.K. Sharma of the manufacturing unit, M/s. J.L. Autoparts. It is also seen that all the payments were made to the dealers by cheque and there is no allegation much less any proof of flow back of the money from dealers to the appellant. Revenue has also not made any enquiries from the transporters as regards the transportation of the goods in question. As such the denial of Cenvat credit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o such firms/company and only invoices were issued to them and this was done to cover part of their despatch of stainless steel to Jodhpur unit and to pass on cenvat credit to these parties who were obtaining only cenvatable invoices from them without receiving the goods mentioned in such invoices. No other evidence in the form of statement from the trader or transporter or broker was required. 12. Once duly admitted facts have come on record indicating that no movement of goods have taken place and only invoice having moved, no question of goods showing existence and subsequent movement arises. Further statement of Shri Arvind Tiwari, authorised signatory, Faridabad on being confronted with the question whether they received duty paid goods with the invoices received from M/s Arvind Enterprises, he stated that they received duty paid goods with all the invoices received from M/s Arvind Enterprises, Faridabad. On being further asked whether they ensured that they received that same duty paid goods manufactured by the manufacturer reflected in the invoices received from M/s Arvind Enterprises, Faridabad, he stated that they had not ensured the same; that he had been shown the state ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
