9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 241X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere are inherent contradictions seen in the document with regard to price and also the mismatch of the description of goods received by the assesses, thus, we do not find any good ground to take different view as that of the CESTAT. Thus with the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax (Appeals), the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, thus, concurring on the finding of the Officer viz., Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise, Service Tax and Customs, we do not find any substantial question of law arise to admit the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. - Decided against assessee. - C.M.A. No. 3212 of 2013 and M.P. No. 1 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 11-10-2013 - Chitra Venkataraman and T.S. Sivagnanam, JJ. Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ased. Wire Coils from M/s. Karpagam Steels, Coimbatore but passed on the Cenvat credit mentioning them as Scrap/ MS Scrap. The Officers had reasonable doubt about the supplier viz., M/s. Leadsman and M/s. Sri Amman Steels, that these suppliers had passed on Cenvat credit fraudulently in some other cases. This led to the further investigation in this case. The Manager and Authorised Signatory of the assessee herein was examined, so too, the suppliers. On a specific statement recorded from the Director of the assessee, it was noted that the assessee did not notice the price difference and they satisfied with the description, quantity and value in tune with their purchase orders, thus, claimed the Cenvat credit. He further pointed out that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the assessee had received non-duty paid MS Scrap and SS Scrap from the registered dealers. In the background of materials, for wrongly availing the Cenvat credit, adjudicating authority ordered recovery of Cenvat credit under Rule 12 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 read with Section 38A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11A(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, ordered interest under Rule 12 of the Cenvat Credit Rules read with Section 38A of the Central Excise Act 1944 and Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944, penalty under Rule 13(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 read with Section 38A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as not relating to the material used in manufacture by the assessee. The CESTAT rejected the defence of the assessee that they were not aware of the fraudulent nature of the documents, that considering the inherent contradictions seen in the document with regard to price and also the mismatch of the description of goods received by the assessee, the CESTAT uphold the order of the lower authority. Aggrieved by this, the present appeal is preferred by the assessee. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that being manufacturer of iron and castings, they purchased scrap and at the time of purchase, the assessee had no knowledge that the materials supplied to them were fraudulently passed on by the registered dealers dealing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rded from the assessee and the suppliers. It is not denied by them what was supplied to them and what was noted in the source document was of different description. The contention of the assessee that they had no knowledge about the non-duty suffered scrap cannot be taken as a good defence in this case, particularly, when the assessee had no explanation as to its failure to advert due attention to the description of the goods in the invoice given to them and what had been infect supplied to them. 11. Considering the statement recorded from the assessee, the GESTAT rightly viewed that there are inherent contradictions seen in the document with regard to price and also the mismatch of the description of goods received by the assesses, thus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fically showed that there was no fraud played by the industry and that there was no evidence on record to suggest even active involvement of the assessee. The Delhi High Court pointed out that whenever an allegation of fraud and bogus invoice is taken, it is obligatory on the part of the Department to point out definite evidence leading to the conclusion as regards the involvement of the assessee in claiming unavailed credit. Thus, the decision of the Apex Court reported in 2013-TIOL-41-SC-CX = 2013 (295) E.L.T. 177 (S.C.) (cited supra) as well as the Delhi High Court reported in 2008 (228) E.L.T. 347 (Del.) (cited supra) rested on the peculiar circumstances of those cases, which cannot be pressed into service in support of the assessee s c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
