9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 556X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the cover of invoices at a lower price. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue on two grounds i.e. description of goods does not tally and the price at which the manufacturer sold the scrap much higher price at which the main respondent procured the scrap, are not sustainable. During the course of investigation it was also found that there are incidence of substitution of scrap with respect to supply of MS Off cuts by M/s Steelcom against invoice of M/s Shaima Traders which was in the process of being offloaded in the premises of the main respondent but the said goods were not accepted by the main respondent. The CENVAT Credit to the respondent was also denied by the learned Commissioner in the impugned order. However, an option was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ining the impugned order, I do not find any infirmity with the impugned order. Therefore, the impugned order is upheld. - Decided against Revenue. - Appeal No. E/785 to 796/07 /Mum, E/CO-206, 204, 205/07 - - - Dated:- 4-4-2014 - Shri Ashok Jindal,JJ. For the Appellants : Shri V. C. Khole, Jt. Commissioner (A.R.) For the Respondent : Shri Vipin Kumar Jain, Advocate with Shri Vishal Agarwal, Advocate ORDER Per Ashok Jindal The Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order. Extracts of the Order portion are given below:- (1) I drop the demand of MODVAT credit of ₹ 49,89,412/-. (2) I do not impose any penalty under clause (ii) of sub Rule (4) of Rule 57 I and under clause (bb) of Sub Rule 173Q of the Centr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h was actually supplied under the cover of invoices was CRCA scrap. Therefore, the impugned order has been challenged on the following grounds:- (a) CENVAT credit could not have been availed against invoices where the description of the goods mentioned in the invoice does not match with the description of the goods physically received. (b) The price at which the scrap was sold by M/s Bajaj Auto Ltd. Pune/Aurangabad and M/s Telco, Pimpri to the 1st stage dealers was excessively higher than the price at which dealer sold such goods to the respondent. (c) Various statements recorded during the course of investigation under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 wherein it was an admitted fact that the goods supplied to the main re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent. This fact has been confirmed by various statements of the dealers recorded during the course of investigation. In the circumstances, it cannot be held on the basis of the description of the goods that goods are not same which have been sold by the manufacturer of the scrap to the main respondent. 4.1 He further submits that as the various dealer who procured those scrap from the manufacturer of the scrap, segregated the same in their premises. After segregation they sells the scraps which can be reused as such on higher price and which is to be melted at lower prices. In these circumstances, the price of scrap varies as per the quality and use of scrap. The main respondent procured the scrap for melting purposes, therefore, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... than 2 width of parallel length and any length. It was also described that the Offcuts were different from time to time as MS Scrap, MS Scrap Off cuts, MS Melting Scrap etc. It is further stated that some of the material from MS Off cut Type A can be used for manufacture of components rest can be used as melting scrap. He further submits that till 1997 they were describing the goods as M.S. Scrap and after the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of LML, they started classifying these goods as MS Off cuts of various types. It was further submitted by him that M.S. Offcuts of Type A can be used for manufacture of components implying that the remaining MS Offcuts could be used only for melting. From the above deposition of Shri K S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gainst invoice of M/s Shaima Traders which was in the process of being offloaded in the premises of the main respondent but the said goods were not accepted by the main respondent. The CENVAT Credit to the respondent was also denied by the learned Commissioner in the impugned order. However, an option was given to redeem the same to M/s Steelcom and there is no allegation that the main respondent had any idea or inclination whatsoever of substitution of the scrap by M/s Steelcom. No other incident of the said type has been noticed by the Revenue during the course of investigation. Further, reliance on the statement of Shri Naim Choudhary of M/s Shaima Iron Scrap Traders, I find that in this case although there is an admission by Shri Naim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
