9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 791X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... FINAL ORDER No.52435/2014 - Dated:- 12-6-2014 - Mr. Manmohan Singh, J. For the Appellant : Shri Tech Chand, Assistant of Advocate For the Respondent : Shri M.S.Negi, DR JUDGEMENT Per MANMOHAN SINGH: Appellant M/s.Arvind Enterprises have come in appeal against OIA No.30/CE/APPL/DLH-IV/2011 dt.19.4.2011 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals), Central Excise, Delhi-IV, Faridabad wherein he has rejected the appeal of the appellant and upheld the order of adjudicating authority. 2. Brief facts of the case are that during the course of investigations conducted by the Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence (DGCE), New Delhi, it transpired from the seized documents statements of various persons recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 that M/s Haryana Steel Alloys Ltd., 48 Km Stone, GT Road, PO- Engineering College, Murthal, Sonepat (Haryana) herein after referred to as HSAL ) indulged in clandestine removal of SS Flats to certain 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2009 was issued to the manufacturer for proposing recovery of irregular cenvat credit with interest and for imposition of penalty on them as well as on the appellant in view of his act of fraudulent issuance of Cenvatable invoices to the manufacturer. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand alongwith interest and imposed penalty of equal amount of confirmed demand on them. 4. Commissioner (Appeals) observed that that show cause notice has alleged that appellant has contravened the provisions of Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Rule 7 of Rule Cenvat credit Rules, 2002/Rule9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, as they deliberately issued fake Cenvatable invoices wherein manufacturer were liable for penal action under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Commissioner (Appeals) at page 5 of para 5(2) upheld the findings of adjudicating authority. 5. Relevant para is reproduced for ready reference:- 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 manufactu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... borative evidence either in the shape of transporter s statement or driver has been furnished. He further stated that appellant procured the goods from broker but broker has not been brought on record. He also referred to the statement of Ramesh Rawat, Director of HSAL wherein he stated that they used invoices of carbon steel billets, alloys and MS billets whereas the goods sold by them were alloy steel bars/rods. He raised doubt that dealers might have arranged the goods from sources and supplied alongwith invoices. 7. He also referred to the Hon ble Tribunal s judgement in similar case vide Final Order No.A/55185-55187/2013-SM (Br) dt.14.1.13 reported as 2013 (296) ELT 253 (Tri.). Relevant para 8 of above judgement is reproduced below: 8. The said order of Commissioner (Appeals) is impugned before Tribunal. After hearing both the sides and after going through the impugned 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 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or of HSAL. Statement of appellant dated 17.12.2008 was the same. purchase material was same, investigation agency i.e. DGCEI was same and period of dispute was same, only user of cenvatale goods was different. He submitted that the facts of above quoted decision may be applicable to the facts of present case. 9. On the other hand, ld.DR reiterated the findings contained in the Order-in- Original which were confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 10. Heard both sides. I have gone through the ground of appeal taken by the appellant as well as finding of the adjudicating authority and Commissioner (Appeals). 11. The main issue involved in the appeal before Tribunal is whether there is any force in the contention of the appellant despite clear admittance of Shri Ramesh Rawat, Director of HSAL that they were issuing fake invoices and no goods of declared description were actually sent to 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 invoi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
