9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 29X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. Ayushi Steel is bogus, the subsequent transaction would also be bogus and therefore, it is for the appellant M/s. Nidhi Enterprises to prove as to from where the material (CR strips/sheets)claimed to have been supplied to M/s. Rasandik Engineering Industries had been procured. When the transaction between M/s. Pasondia Steel Profiles and first stage dealer M/s. Ayushi Steel were bogus, and when M/s. Ayushi Steel are supposed to have sold the material procured from M/s. Pasondia Steel Profiles to M/s. Nidhi Enterprises and M/s. Nidhi Enterprises are supposed to have sold the same material to M/s. Rasandik Engineering Industries, the transaction between M/s. Ayushi Steel. and M/s. Nidhi Enterprises and M/s. Nidhi Enterprises and M/s. Ra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egarding supply of CR strips . Total Cenvat credit availed by M/s. Rasandik Engineering Industries India Ltd., on the basis of invoices issued to M/s. Nidhi Enterprises is ₹ 98,813/-. The invoices issued by the appellant as second stage dealer mentioned their supplier of the goods as M/s. Ayushi Steel, Faridabad, a first stage dealer and also the manufactures name as M/s. Pasondia Steel Profiles Ltd., Ghaziabad. 1.2. In respect of M/s. Pasondia Steel Profiles Ltd. Ghaziabad, a manufacturer of CR strips, there was an inquiry by the department which revealed that while they were procuring HR coils from M/s. SAIL for manufacture of CR sheets and CR strips, they were selling the HR coils to other persons but were availing the Cenvat c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant were also mentioning registration No. of the vehicles in which the goods has been transported; that there is no allegation that the vehicle numbers are bogus or that transport documents are bogus; that M/s. Rasandik Engineering Industries have made payment for the goods sold by the appellant and this fact is also not disputed; that though the appellant had purchased the CR strips supplied to M/s. Rasandik Engineering Industries from first stage dealer M/s. Ayushi Steel M/s. Ayushi Steel, in their statement have named only eight parties to whom they had issued bogus invoices and M/s. Nidhi Enterprises is not among them; that in view of this, it cannot be presumed that the transactions between M/s. Ayushi Steel and appellant were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... could not have sold any of goods to M/s. Rasandik Engineering Industries, that Shri Lalit Goel of M/s. Nidhi Enterprises in his statement dated 19.2.09 has also stated that in the light of the evidence produced before him, he agrees that he has not received any material from M/s. Khemka Ispat and M/s. Pasondia Steel Profiles; that Shri Gautam Bhattacharya, president of M/s. Rasandik Engineering Industries on being shown the evidence, had agreed that Cenvat credit has been wrongly availed on the basis of invoices issued by M/s. Nidhi Enterprises and agreed for reversal of Cenvat credit of ₹ 98,812/- which subsequently was reversed; that when each of the 10 invoices mentioned the manufacturer s name as M/s. Pasondia Steel Profiles and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bogus and therefore, it is for the appellant M/s. Nidhi Enterprises to prove as to from where the material (CR strips/sheets)claimed to have been supplied to M/s. Rasandik Engineering Industries had been procured. As regards the bogus nature of the transactions of M/s. Pasondia Steel Profiles, it is seen that the Tribunal vide Stay Order dated 25.10.10 in case of M/s. Pasondia Steel Profiles reported as 2011 (263) ELT 673 (Tri-Del) after discussing the evidence on record had ordered pre-deposit of ₹ 12 crores. On appeal being filed by M/s. Pasondia Steel Profiles, before Allahabad High Court the same was dismissed vide judgment reported as 2011-TIOL-425-HC-ALLD-CX and while dismissing the appeal filed by M/s. Pasondia Steel Profiles, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the basic of bogus invoices of M/s Ayushi Steels. As held by Hon ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of V K Enterprises vs. CCE Panchkula reported in [2010 (249) ELT 0462 (Tri)] though during the period of dispute, there was no specific provision under Rule 26 for imposition of penalty on a registered dealer for issue of bogus invoice, the penalty for issue of bogus invoices would be imposable on such persons under Rule 25(1)(d) as the persons who purports to have sold the goods cannot say that he was not a person concerned with selling of the goods and merely issued invoices or that he did not contravene any provision relating to evasion of duty. In any case, penalty would be imposable on the Appellant under Rule 15(2) of the Ce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
