9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1532X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... genuine transaction. The petitioners have also not denied that the said suppliers are bogus, fake, fictitious and non-existing. - petitioners were knowing that no such suppliers existed, still endorsed the fake invoices to the processors for facilitating availment of CENVAT credit. Under the circumstances, no error has been committed by the adjudicating authority in denying the part rebate claim with respect to the CENVAT credit with respect to those bogus, fake, fictitious and non-existing invoices and no error has been committed by the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the revisional authorities in confirming the orders of rejecting the part rebate claim. No case has been made out to interfere with the impugned orders. - Decided against Assessee. - Special Civil Application No. 9290-9291 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 20-11-2013 - M.R. Shah and R.P. Dholaria, JJ. Shri Mihir Joshi, Sr. Advocate with Dhaval Shah, Advocate, for the Petitioner. Shri Gaurang H. Bhatt, C.G.S.C., for the Respondent. JUDGMENT As common question of law and facts arise in both these petitions, they are disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. Both these special civil applications u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cessed fabrics corresponding to invoices of grey fabric. The notice also proposed penalty against the processor. Order in Originals came to be passed rejecting the part rebate amount. Penalty also came to be imposed against the processor under Rule 15(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The part rebate claim was rejected mainly on the ground that part of the grey fabric was under invoices of fictitious and non-existent persons. 3.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the OIOs, the petitioners preferred appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals), which came to be rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals). Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the petitioners preferred revision applications under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944 before the Central Government and by impugned order, the Revisional Authority has dismissed the revision applications. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the Revisional Authority, petitioners have preferred the present special civil applications. 4. Shri Mihir Joshi, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners has made only two follo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . It is submitted that it has been found that the said invoices of grey fabrics which were found to be fictitious and fake were endorsed by the petitioners in favour of the processors M/s. Rivaa Textile. 5.1 It is submitted that as such the Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat-I and the Director General Central Excise Intelligence issued alert circulars declaring all the said units suppliers of grey fabrics in question as fake, fictitious and non-existent. It is submitted that the said circulars were duly published and placed on notice board and nobody challenged the same including the petitioners - M/s. Rivaa Exports. It is submitted that even the petitioners have not denied that the said suppliers are bogus, fake, fictitious and non-existing. It is submitted that thus when it has been found that the applicant has knowingly that no such suppliers existed, endorsed the fake invoices to the processors for facilitating availment of CENVAT credit and thereafter paying central excise duty therefrom, the part rebate claim has rightly been rejected. 5.2 Now, so far as the contention on behalf of the petitioners that petitioners made payment to the suppliers by cheque, it is submit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es which were found to be bogus, fake, fictitious and non-existent. 6.1 Now, so far as the contention on behalf of the petitioners that copies of the alert circulars relied upon by the department were not supplied to them is concerned, it is required to be noted that as such the alert circulars issued by Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat-I and also Director General Central Excise Intelligence were duly published and placed on a notice board. Even such a submission/objection was not raised by the petitioners either at adjudication stage or at appellate stage. It is required to be noted that at the adjudication stage no defence reply was filed to the show cause notices. Therefore, it is rightly observed by the revisional authority that there is no justification for raising such a plea at the revision application stage. The aforesaid contention has been dealt with by the revisional authority in extenso in Paras 8 and 9, which reads as under : 8. Government notes that M/s. Rivaa Exports purchased grey fabrics from the suppliers of grey fabrics on Central Excise Invoices and sent the grey fabrics for processing to the processor after endorsing the said invoices. Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ivision Bench of this Court in the decision in Prayagraj Dyeing Printing Mills Pvt. Ltd. Ors. v. Union of India Ors. in Tax Appeal No. 1153/2011 [2013 (290) E.L.T. 61 (Guj.)] and in Special Civil Application No. 98/2012 with Special Civil Application No. 101/2012. After considering the relevant provisions of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and on interpretation of Rule 7(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, it is held that Rule 7(2) cast a further duty upon the appellants to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the inputs or the capital goods in respect of which they have taken the credit of CENVAT are the goods on which appropriate duty of excise as indicated in the documents accompanying the goods, has been paid. In the present case also, it has been found that no proper care and/or reasonable steps were taken to ensure the proper identity and existence of the suppliers. The petitioners did not produce any evidence to prove the transaction of grey fabrics as recorded in their books was genuine transaction. The petitioners have also not denied that the said suppliers are bogus, fake, fictitious and non-existing. It is observed that the petitioners were knowing that no such sup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
