9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 655X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of availment of fraudulent CENVAT Credit on melting scrap on the invoices issued by the dealers of Mandi Govind Garh is not sustainable. Demand of differential duty - imported melting scrap - Held that:- certificate issued by the Range Superintended cannot be denied by any authority in the absence of any contrary evidence. Admittedly, in this case Revenue has not produced any contrary evidence. Therefore, the end user certificate is a reliable evidence to ascertain the fact that the respondent has received the imported melting scrap, therefore, we hold that respondent are entitled for the benefit of notifications allowing the entitlement of concessional rate of duty on the condition of end user as the respondent has complied with the conditions of notifications. Therefore, on imported melting scrap, the respondent is not liable to pay differential custom duty and cannot be denied CENVAT Credit of CVD paid by them. Clandestine removal of goods - parallel invoices - Held that:- Merely, the statement that they have received these photocopies of invoices from Excise and Tax Department of Himachal Pradesh, in the absence of any documentary evidence, the parallel invoices are no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng scrap from different ICDs located in Punjab, it is alleged that the vehicle numbers which transported the goods from ICDs had no corresponding entries in the Sales Tax Barriers of Himachal Pradesh, therefore, inference was drawn that the imported goods have been disposed off in the local market of Punjab and bazaar Scrap was procured from Delhi. On these allegations, the CVD availed by the respondent to the tune of ₹ 36,17,694/- was sought to be denied for the period 1/4/2000 to 15/10/2001. Therefore, as these consignments have been procured from the local market, therefore, they are not eligible for concessional rate of duty on imported goods under notification nos. 23/1998 Customs dated 2/6/1998, 21/1999 Customs dated 28/2/1999, 16/2000 Customs dated 31/03/2000 and 17/2001 Customs dated 1/3/2009 as concessional rate of duty is available with actual user /end use conditions. Therefore, the respondent is liable to pay differential duty of ₹ 1,34,31,105/- for the period 1/2/1999 to 31/03/2000. There is also an allegation against the respondent that during period 1st April, 2000 to 17th October, 2001, the appellant cleared the finished goods on the strength of parallel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Himachal Pradesh as per the gate pass of ICD and no cogent evident has been produced by the respondent, therefore, conclusion drawn by the Revenue that these are bazaar scrap procured from Delhi is correct. He further submits that the parallel invoices have been received from the Sales Tax Department and the same has been produced before the authorities. Therefore, Revenue has been able to prove that respondent is clearing goods on the strength of parallel invoices. The records obtained from Excise and Taxation Department are admissible evidence has held by this Tribunal in the case of National Conduit Pipes Vs. CCE-Chandigarh (supra) and these documents have been examined by the authorized signatory. Therefore, the charge of clandestine removal has been proved. In these circumstances, he pleaded that impugned order is to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that in this case, the allegation that goods have not been passed through Punjab barrier is not sustainable as the goods procured from Mandi Govind Garh were duly entered at the Sales Tax Barrier of Himachal Pradesh. The allegation of the Revenue is that this is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... other hand entry at the Himachal Pradesh Sales Tax Barrier entry point is there. Therefore, the receipt of scrap has been entered into the barrier of Himachal Pradesh. Moreover, the allegation against the respondent is that they have procured this scrap from Delhi. If the scrap is procured from Delhi to enter into Himachal Pradesh, the same has to pass through many State Barriers but Revenue has failed to prove that respondent has procured the scrap from Delhi with cogent evidence that same has passed through various barriers particularly from the Punjab Barrier of Sales Tax. Admittedly, no statement of transporters has been recorded to unearth the truth and the payment of all the scraps have been made by the respondent through account of payee cheques. In the absence of any cogent evidence against the respondent, the charge of availment of fraudulent CENVAT Credit on melting scrap on the invoices issued by the dealers of Mandi Govind Garh is not sustainable. As Revenue has failed to prove that the respondent has not received the goods, therefore, we do agree with the observation of the ld. Adjudicating Authority on this issue and rightly dropped the demand on this account and not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
