9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 857X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f rebate of duty paid on raw materials used in the manufacture and export of stainless steel utensils in its factory at Umbergaon in Gujarat and its two job workers at Vasai in Maharashtra. Investigations conducted by the officers of the Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence (DGCEI) revealed that the raw materials - (stainless steel patta/patti/coils) shown purchased from Jodhpur and from within Gujarat, were never brought to factory of the main appellant at Umbergaon or to the premises of the two job workers, declared with the department and that the stainless steel utensils, which were exported, were procured from other manufacturers located in Delhi. Therefore, vide the impugned 143 page Order-in-Original dated 31.03.2009 the adjudicating authority confirmed a demand of Rs. 1,22,82,044/- along with interest against the main appellant on account of erroneously sanctioned rebate and also rejected rebate claim to the tune of Rs. 2,20,91,410/-. Penalties were also imposed upon the appellants under various provisions of the Central Excise Act 1944 and Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules 2002. 3. Shri J. C. Patel (Advocate) for the main appellant and its Director, argued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls & Strips (P) Ltd., Umargaon had retracted the statements made before the DGCEI. This report further says that Arihant Coils (P) Limited has submitted evidence showing the statement of account along with the complete details of opening stock, purchases during the year, manufacture, sales and closing stock for the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07, thereby completely ruling out the Revenues allegation of making paper invoices only. (c) That it is undisputed that the export goods in fully packed condition were actually removed from the factory of the main appellant under proper central excise invoices through genuine transport vehicles. The purchase of packing material by the main appellant and its use in packing of export goods is also not in dispute. On verification of one 'Live Consignment' of 59,697.480 Kgs of export goods, detained by the DGCEI on 04.04.2006, the DGCEI did not find any discrepancy; not a single item from such a huge 'Live Consignment' was found to tally with the alleged supplies of basins etc. from Delhi manufacturers (Page 1333, 1346-1349 - Vol.-8). The report from Container Corporation of India Limited (CONCOR) dated 12.10.2006 at pages 1354 to 1361 - V ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ji Steel Works and Adikanksha Impex Private Limited at Gala No. 14 and Gala No. 1, Swamini Industrial Estate, Vasai East (Ex. A-6 p 18 Vol. 1). Thereafter on 23.12.2004, the appellant further intimated additional address of another unit of said two job workers at Gala No. 1-4, 7-11, Adikanksha Ware House, Vasai East. Both the units are located adjacent to each other. The DGCEI visited the job workers one unit on 29.03.2006, which was a holiday due to solar eclipse & no responsible person of the job workers was present. The DGCEI did not carry out any verification despite job workers written request under letter dated 30.03.2006 (Page 157 of Vol. 1) of the job worker obtained from the DGCEI records under RTI Act. A perusal of the Note Sheet dated 08.02.2007 of the Case Diary of DGCEI shows that the Sr. IO obtained complete information of the job workers from the jurisdictional DC for the two places but did not carry out any verification. The Note Sheet dated 17.10.2006 (Page 1560-61 & 1581 Vol. 9) also reveals that Sr. IO was directed on 17.10.2006 to obtain a chartered engineer certificate regarding installed capacity of the main appellant's factory at Umbergaon and the two job wo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llants that retracted statement dated 27.03.2006 of Shri Navneet Chhabra was not an acceptable piece of evidence, does not merit consideration inasmuch as various revelations such as non-receipt of inputs after 04.03.2006, insufficient machineries lying and not being used, availability of only 16 MT of SS Patta/ Patti in appellants factory, preparation of job work challans etc. by Shri Chhabra during Panchnama dated 27.03.2006 had not been rebutted so far. Though Shri Chhabra retracted his statement vide his letter dated 28.03.2006, the enquiry officer had issue him 11 summons of different dates to tender further evidence, but he did not turn up. The conclusion of the adjudicating authority to the effect that retraction of the statement and non appearance of Shri Chhabra despite repeated summons is perhaps due to influence of someone is proved when a reference is made to the statement of Shri Pawan Dhasriwal dated 08.05.2007, wherein he categorically named Shri Deepak Agarwal, Director and one another person at the influence of whom he retracted his statement dated 27.03.2006 vide letter dated 28.03.2006. He argued though Shri Deepak Agarwal was present in the office premises of M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the said vehicles were never used for transportation of goods from Arihant to HKI-Guj or to the units of the job workers. Further, the statements of the Director/ employees of Ariahant prove that the materials covered under the invoices of Arihant, raised on appellant's units, had never been dispatched and only invoices were raised at the instance of Shri Deepak Agarwal (Para 6.2 to 6.7 and 28.15 of the OIO). The statements of Shri Kartik Shah and Shri Dhiraj Lalchand Jain and others of Shah Foils and also the statements of the transporters M/s Ambica Transport Services as well as documentary proofs in the form of certain GC notes having signatures of Shri Soni on back side thereof very authentically prove that the consignments covered under invoices of M/s Shah Foils were not delivered at the appellant unit/ job workers units and only distributed to different buyers at Vasai/ Bhayander only. With regard to purchases of inputs from other manufacturers of Jodhpur, the charges are established on the basis of statements of suppliers/ manufacturers of inputs as well as from the statements of the transporters recorded by the officers of DGCEI. (f) That the MVAT Report is not rel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ectly from the material manufacturers or from registered dealers, are actually received by the manufacturer of export goods; that the same are actually used in the manufacture of export goods; and that the export goods so manufactured are actually exported. If any of these essential requirements is not met with, the claim of rebate under the notification cannot be sanctioned/ paid. We find that after the Revenue started its investigations regarding alleged fraudulent rebate claims by the main appellant, the Maharashtra Value Added Tax authorities obtained copies of various documents from the Central Excise Department on the issue and commenced independent investigations from VAT angle. During this investigation the statements of the transporters were recorded by Maharashtra Sales Tax Authorities in their own language 'Hindi', which indicate that the inputs in fact have been transported and delivered to the factory of main appellant or to its two job workers at Vasai, which contradict the statements recorded by DGCEI in English. These transporters have confirmed transportation of inputs from the factory premises of the main appellant to its two job workers in Vasai. The input suppli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
