9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 206X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S. Coils. They were also taking Cenvat credit of the duty paid on the slabs. They were buying M.S. Slab through their associate company at Hissar as well as other suppliers in Raipur, Bhilal, Guwahati and Hissar. On the basis of information that appellant fraudulently availed modvat credit of duty paid on inputs and capital goods on the strength of duty paying documents procured by them without actual receipt of inputs/capital goods on 26/8/1995 to 29/8/1995, the Central Excise Authorities, searched the premises of the appellant and noticed a shortage of 2620.800 MT of slabs. On further verification, stock of 76.62 of M.S. Plates (final product) valued at Rs. 11,89,650/- was found to be in excess of the stock shown in the statutory record. The excess M.S. Plates were seized. 5. Shri Yashwant Singh Bisht, DGM and Shri B.R. Bishnoi, Excise Officers of the appellant - M/s. Bhanu & Steel Co. Ltd., in their respective statements accepted the shortage of 2620.800 MT Slabs and were satisfied with the manner of stock taking and they further deposed that this difference is due to actual nonreceipt of slabs in the factory. They have received only duty paying documents. The adjudicating auth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ithampur. iii) They are also liable to pay interest at appropriate rate under rules 57I (5) and 57U (8) of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 from the first day of the month succeeding to the month in which wrong credit was availed by noticee No.1 M/s- M/s Bhanu Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. Plot No.801, Sector-III, Pithampur. iv) I also confiscate land, building plant and machinery of noticee No.1 but give an opinion to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 25,00,000/- (Twenty Five Lacs only) within 3 months of receipt of this order under Rule 173Q(2) of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. v) I also impose penalty of Rs. 25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lacs only) is imposed on the Noticee No.2 - Shri Anoop Bishnoi, Managing Director of Noticee No.1-M/s. Bhanu Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. Plot No.801, Sector-III, Pithampur, under Rule 209A of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. vi) A penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lacs only) each is imposed on the Noticee No.3- Shri Y.R. Bisht, Dy. General Manager, of Noticee No.1- M/s. Bhanu Iron & Steel Co. Ltd., Plot No.801, Sector-III Pithampur, Noticee No.4-M/s Belveder Engineering Ltd., 9th K.M.Stone Behind Janak Stee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ragraphs, huge shortage 2620 MT of M.S. Slab was detected clearly indicating only paper transactions. Otherwise huge quantity of M/s. Slabs would not have been found short. (c) Investigation relating to M/s UAL, M/s Belveder Engg. Ltd., that these unit did not have any infrastructure to produce the goods thus indicating only paper transactions with the sole motive to pass on illegal cenvat credit. (d) Statement of Shri P.S. Bedi director of M/s. UAL that UAL was working on the directions of Shri Bishnoi even Shri Bishnoi was not officially on Board of the Company. He has no knowledge of sale of M.S. Slabs by M/s UAL to M/s BISCO, Pithampur and invoices issued about sale were only book entries. Mr. Bedi admitted that even sometime, he used to sign blank papers on the directions of Shri Bishnoi. (e) Visit on 19.6.1996 to the unit namely M/s BISCO Hissar revealed that unit did not have infrastructure. Amazingly, there was no electricity connection. Even this unit did not have Bank Account. (f) Shri Ranjan Stephen Director of M/s. Belvedere Engineering Ltd, Hissar deposed in his statement that unit did not have any facility to manufacture the goods in question. (g) Goods purp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctions with intent to pass on illegal cenvat credit. 38. It is observed that Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of M/s Alagappa Cement (P) Ltd Vs. CCE Chennai - 2010 (260) ELT 511 (Madras) and Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the case of CCE Vs. International Cylinder Pvt. Ltd - 2010 (255) ELT 68 (H.P.) has come up with the findings that there could be no unjust enrichment at the cost of revenue. 39. From the above, a clear fraud with intention to fabricate documents with the sole motive to illegally avail and pass n the Cenvat credit get manifest and get proved with detailed investigations by the revenue. 40. In view of above we find no infirmity in the findings recorded by adjudicating authority. Accordingly we uphold the findings in respect of appellants. Appeals are dismissed." 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to order dated 29/3/2000 (Annexure A/4), letters Annexure A/5 to A/13 and Annexure A/14 dated 13/10/2005 and submits that the representation of the appellant visited the Superintendent (Preventive) on 14/10/2005, for collection of documents. However, it was found that the floppies / files handed over to the represe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sought some more time for filing reply. Personal Hearing has again been fixed for 7.4.99, but nobody appeared on that date on behalf of Noticees. 27. The Noticee No.1 vide their letter dated 18.3.99 requested for release of nonrelied upon documents. However, based on an acknowledgment by Shri B. K. Joshi, Authorized signatory, way back on 24.9.98 my predecessor took the stand that the Noticee is unnecessarily trying to prolong the case without sufficient reasons and, therefore, proceeded and adjudicated the case. However, the Noticee succeeded in projecting a picture before the Hon'ble Tribunal that their case was adjudicated without following the principles of natural justice and without supplying the documents demanded by them. In this context, I have examined in detail, the acknowledgment dated 24.09.98 given by the Authorized signatory of the Noticee on which my predecessor had relied upon heavily for proceeding in the case. The said acknowledgment categorically mentioned that they have not received (I) computer, (ii) Computer floppies-64 (iii) files at Nos. 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 36, 37 & 58 of Annexure-B of panchnama dated 26.08.1995 withdrawn from their premises. 28. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not cooperating with the Department on flimsy grounds. This is evident from the fact that at the time of receipt of files on 23.3.2005, the Noticee never disputed regarding the contents whereas on 24.3.2005, they have submitted a letter disputing the contents of the files. This is clearly an after thought and had the contents were different, they should have verified at the time of receipt itself and refused taking possession thereof. This is not the case, and in the case of computer floppies as well as the objection of the Noticee is not tenable. These floppies were withdrawn by a suitable panchnama drawn at the time of seizure and at that time, the objection regarding technicalities of the floppies were never raised by the Noticee. The only conclusion that can be arrived from these facts is that the Noticee is trying mischievously to prolong the proceedings. This at any costs cannot be granted by a judicious adjudicating officer. In this view of the matter, I am proceeding with the case based on the available records, evidences and defence submissions of the other Noticees." 10. From the aforesaid, the contention of the appellant appears to be incorrect. In view of the concu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
