9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2403X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Muni Group of Companies on the invoices of Muni Group and thereafter exported or used in processing. Thus, there are excisable goods which are purported to be cleared on the invoice of Muni Group. In all cases, the investigations have indicated that the goods were never transported from Muni Group of Companies to the appellants or to the port of export. Investigations revealed that the goods were lifted from some dealers in Surat, etc. Further, investigations indicate that some payments were made to Muni Group of Companies through account payee cheques. However, immediately, thereafter, Muni Group of Companies have issued cheques in the name of some other entities. These cheques were, in turn got discounted by the merchant exporter/appellants. In some cases, the amounts were paid by crossed bearer cheques to Muni Group of Companies. However, these cheques were, in reality, not deposited in the accounts of Muni Group of Companies, but were deposited either in the name of certain dealers or got discounted from various bill discounters/shroffs. In nutshell, the money which was purported to have been paid to Muni Group of Companies for purchase of material was not paid to them but eit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it so as to get it encashed or utilise it for payment of duty liability. The penalty imposed on various appellants are as under: S. No. Appellants Penalty (Rs. ) 1. Shri Babul Jain, Partner of Rainbow Silks, 2,00,000/- 2. Shri Prem Rautramni Joshi, Monika Impex 25,00,000/- 3. Shri Yudhishtir Kumar Batra, Partner/Proprietor of Vikram International & Dipika Overseas 2,00,00,000/- 4. Shri Atma Prakash Batra, of Guria Textiles 25,00,000/- 5. Shri Prakash Poddar Authorised Signatory of Karishma Overseas & Sheetal Exports 75,00,000/- 6. Shri Rajesh Rameshwar Dayal Bansal, Partner of R.J.Fashions 25,00,000/- 7. Shri Manohar Mali, Proprietor of Shree Ganesh Enterprises 2,00,000/- 8. Shri Ayush Murarilal Agarwal, Proprietor of Namaste Exports, Authorised Signatory of Prime Exports & Daffodils Exports 50,00,000/- 9. Shri Ajit Singh B Choraria, Proprietor of Shubham Silk Mills, Authorised Signatory of Shubham Textiles, Shubhlaxmi Textiles & Shubhlaxmi Exports 50,00,000/- 10. Shri Ajay Rameshchandra Mittal, Proprietor of K.V. Corporation, Shubhlaxmi and Sejal Overseas 50,00,000/- 11. Shri Naresh J. Doshi, Partner of Doshi Impex 1,00,000/- 12. Shri Farooq R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in different accounts of Muni Group of Companies and equal amount of bearer cheques were issued to the merchant exporters/Rule 12B manufacturers from these accounts. In some cases, some payments have been shown to be made in the account to the local supplier of Surat against supply of fabric/textile item, etc. which have been exported against ARE-1s/Rule 12B manufacturers. The claim of the merchant exporter/Rule 12B manufacturers relating to the transport of the goods from the Muni Group of companies to the purported buyers viz: merchant exporter/Rule 12B manufacturers were found to be false as the transporters were found to be non-existent and bogus. Investigation conducted at the port of export revealed that the goods were transported by actual transporters from various suppliers of Surat to the port of export and none from the Muni Group of Companies located near Mumbai. 4. Thus, in brief, Muni Group of Companies were involved in only channeling documents such as invoices to the Rule 12B manufacturer for taking CENVAT credit and ARE-1s to the merchant exporter for claiming rebate of duty on exports against ARE-1s. The merchant exporters in these cases have knowingly purchased ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essed fabrics by availing CENVAT credit of duty paid by Muni Group of Companies as well as through PLA on account of value addition. It was submitted that the processed fabrics were then exported under claim for rebate. It was submitted that no rebate has been received by them in respect of 12B manufacturers. Also penalties imposed under Rule 26 on the ground that the fabrics received by them were not manufactured by Muni Group of Companies but were procured from the open market and that such goods are liable to confiscation. It was submitted that the Commissioner, however, has not indicated that as to how and under which provision of law the goods allegedly procured from the market and exported are liable to confiscation. 5.3. As far as appellant No. 7 is concerned, it was submitted that he was name sake proprietor of Shree Ganesh Enterprises whose name was used by Shri Shyam Sunder Sharma of Surya Exports for discounting of cheques. It was, however, submitted that appellant No.7 has, in his statement, stated that though his name was used for discounting of cheques, the cash was received by Shri Shyam Sunder Sharma and the Commissioner has imposed penalty of ₹ 2 lakhs under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herwise. In support of the said contention, following case laws are quoted: (i) Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Decent Dyeing Co. 1990 (45) ELT 201 (SC); (ii) Nagpur Re-Rolling Mills vs. Commissioner of Central Excise 2001 (136) ELT 423. 5.5. It was submitted that the Commissioner has not indicated as to how and under which provision of the law goods procured from the open market and exported are liable to confiscation and no penalty can be imposed under Rule 26. 5.6. In rebuttal of ARs contention, learned counsel also submitted that the case of Sanjay Vimalbhai Deora vs. CESTAT reported in 2014 (306) ELT 533 (Guj.) quoted by the learned AR is in different context and is in the context of clandestine removal of excisable goods. It was submitted that in the said case, the honble Gujarat High Court has said that a penalty is imposable if excisable goods have been rendered liable to confiscation and since in the present case the goods are not liable to confiscation, penalty cannot be imposed under Rule 26. Thus, the case law does not help the case of the department. It was also submitted that the other case law quoted by the AR relating to Commissioner of Central Excise vs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ched the three firms and on the basis that the actual beneficiary of certain cheques issued to M/s. Muni Group of Companies by the three firms were firms like M/s. Eagle Textile, Metro Industries etc. indicating that they were actual suppliers and not Muni Group of Companies. The learned counsel submitted that the rebate claims preferred by Daffodil Exports and Prime Exports were initially allowed in revision application but the department approached the honble High Court who in turn remanded the matter to the revisionary authority. The revisionary authority remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority who held adversely against the aforesaid firms. The appeal against the said order has been rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the revision application is pending before the Government of India. Learned counsel submitted that they have received the goods from M/s. Muni Group of Companies and made payments by account payee cheques or crossed bearer cheques. It was also submitted that there is no need to open the packages as the packing list could be prepared on the basis of packing slips received from Muni Group. It was submitted that the partner transport company ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Balaji Trading Co. 2013 (290) ELT 200 the provisions of Rule 25 would be attracted only against the four category of persons mentioned therein and thus the said rule cannot be made applicable in the case of present appellant and hence since the goods cannot be confiscated penalty under Rule 26 cannot be imposed on the appellant. It was also submitted that Rule 26 was amended w.e.f. 01/03/2007 and the present dispute is for the period prior to that and therefore, Rule 26(2) is not applicable as held by various courts and hence no penalty can be imposed prior to 01/03/2007. It was submitted that the case of Shri Sanjay Vimalbhai Deora (supra) quoted by learned AR is not applicable as there the case was of clandestine clearance of the goods and in the personal knowledge of the Director In the present case, the goods held liable for confiscation are exported goods and not clandestinely cleared goods and hence the said case law is distinguishable. It was also submitted that the other case laws are also not applicable as the same have been distinguished by the honble Punjab & Haryana High Court in subsequent judgments. It was also submitted tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r dispute in another show cause notice F. No. V-Adj(52,54,63)/CSCN/M-I/15-16/2008 dated 09/07/2008. The said show cause notice was adjudicated and penalty on the present appellant was imposed under Rule 26. It was submitted that a person cannot be penalized twice for the same offence. It was submitted that the appellant is a customer of Apex Corporation and no role can be attributed to the present appellant as he is neither a supplier of goods/invoices to M/s. Apex Corporation on which M/s. Apex Corporation would have availed credit nor it is a merchant exporter. It was submitted that the allegation that that they have received the amount in cash is untrue as their employee Mr. Ashish in his statement dated 25/04/2007 has categorically denied the same. The bill discounter Shri Shreik Acharatlal Varaiya in his statement dated 13/10/2006 and 14/10/2006 has confirmed Mr. Ashish as only the person providing reference i.e. bringing the parties for bill discounting and further stated that the ultimate beneficiaries of cash are the person to whom the cheque belongs. It was submitted that no penalty has been imposed on the bulk bill discounter, there is no reason to impose any penalty on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted that the details from the banks and enquires with agents doing cheque discounting confirmed that whatever payment was made to Muni Group of companies, same was received back by these two companies in cash. Statement of transporters proves that goods did not move from Muni Group of Companies but somewhere else. 6.4. In respect of appellant No. 4, it was submitted that they have claimed inadmissible CENVAT Credit on the invoices of Muni Group without receiving any goods. Para XXVIII on page 52 and para 10 on page 130, para viii on page 174 of the impugned order were referred to explain the issues. 6.5. In respect of appellant No. 5, the appellant is a merchant manufacturer and claimed rebate against ARE-Is of Muni Group without receiving any goods. Para 51 and 53 on page 29 and 30, para 53.13 on page 33, para 54.2, 54.4 on page 34, para 54.3 of page 54, para XIX of pg. 50, para V of pg. 56, para 8 on page 120,para 14 on page 143,para iii on page 173,para vii on page 174 were explained by learned AR. 6.6. In respect of appellant No. 6, the appellant had received only invoices in his firms name from Muni Group and on these invoices he took CENVAT credit of ₹ 1 crore. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... VII (a), (b) on page 57 and 58, para 5 on pg. 92, para 8 on pg 128 of the impugned order, was explained in detail. 6.11. As far as appellant No.11 is concerned, appellant is a merchant exporter and has claimed rebate against the ARE-Is of Muni Group without actually receiving any goods. The Commissioner has given findings in para V on page 173 of the impugned order. Para 63 on page 65, 66 and para 9 on page 129 of the impugned order details his role. 6.12. In respect of appellant No. 12, it was submitted that, again the appellant is a merchant exporter, obtained ARE1 from Muni group and claimed rebate. Para V on page 42, para iv on page 73 and para xi on page 174 of the impugned order refers to his role. 6.13. In respect of appellant No. 13, it was submitted that the appellant is a merchant exporter and his role is discussed in the impugned order at para 58.1(ii) on page 40, para a, b c on page 41, para ii, ii(a) on page 72. 6.14. As regards appellant No. 14, it is submitted that, again, the appellant is a merchant exporter and shown exports against ARE-Is of Muni Group without receiving any goods and claimed rebate. His role is explained in Para 20 on page 50, para xiii on p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arket and exported are liable to confiscation. 8.1. We have given considerable thought to the submission. We reproduce Rule 25 and 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 as under: "RULE 25. Confiscation and penalty. (1) Subject to the provisions of section 11AC of the Act, if any producer, manufacturer, registered person of a warehouse or a registered dealer, - (a) removes any excisable goods in contravention of any of the provisions of these rules or the notifications issued under these rules; or (b) does not account for any excisable goods produced or manufactured or stored by him; or (c) engages in the manufacture, production or storage of any excisable goods without having applied for the registration certificate required under section 6 of the Act; or (d) contravenes any of the provisions of these rules or the notifications issued under these rules with intent to evade payment of duty, then, all such goods shall be liable to confiscation and the producer or manufacturer or registered person of the warehouse or a registered dealer, as the case may be, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding the duty on the excisable goods in respect of which any contravention of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... up of Companies. However, these cheques were, in reality, not deposited in the accounts of Muni Group of Companies, but were deposited either in the name of certain dealers or got discounted from various bill discounters/shroffs. In nutshell, the money which was purported to have been paid to Muni Group of Companies for purchase of material was not paid to them but either was taken back by the appellants-merchant exporters, or in some cases, some amount was paid to certain dealers in fabric. (Perhaps, some fabrics might have been purchased from them.) Thus, it is evident that the invoices of Muni Group of Companies and the goods purported to be covered by such invoices were dealt by the merchant exporter-appellants. There can be no doubt, that these goods are liable to confiscation under Rule 25(1)(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1994. In view of the above said position, there can be no doubt that penalty is imposable under Rule 26 on the merchant exporter/manufacturer under Rule 12B. 8.3. We also like to add the very fact that the appellants have procured invoices from a source other than the actual manufacturers of the goods would indicate that these goods were in reality not duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , if the goods were duty paid, there was no reason for the appellants to approach Muni Group of Companies and procure the fraudulent invoices. In that situation, the appellants could have got the invoices from the seller of the goods and could have claimed the rebate. The very fact that this fraudulent exercise has been done indicates that the goods which were exported and procured from the market were non-duty paid goods. In case of some appellants, the goods were produced in their own unit and if in their own unit they would have paid duty, there was no reason for them to procure the invoices from Muni Group of Companies. 8.7. Various counsels have submitted that Rule 26 was amended w.e.f. 01/03/2007 wherein dealers were also become liable to penalty and thus, prior to 01/03/2007 no penalty could have been imposed on the dealers. We have considered this submission. While Rule 26(2) is prospective in nature, we find that in this case almost all appellants are Rule 12B manufacturers or merchant exporters. In the case of 12B manufacturers even though they may not have the manufacturing facility themselves, but they were treated as manufacturer under the Central Excise law and hence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid goods vide Central Excise invoice No. 73, dated 20/04/2014, invoice No. 99 dated 25/04/2004 and 108 dated 15/05/2004 and the corresponding ARE-1s. These ARE-1s are of M/s. Globe Traders, Bhiwandi, a Muni Group of Company. From the investigation, it is clear that the appellant has paid the amount through account payee cheques deposited in the accounts of Globe Traders. It is also clear that, thereafter, the cheques were issued by Globe Traders in the name of local parties of Surat. From the investigation it comes out that the appellant had no connection with Shri K. K. Gupta, Shri Dashrath More, Shri Deepak Jare, and also Shri M.K. Patel, Superintendent and he was dealing with Shri Ajay Mittal from whom they have bought the goods in good faith. It also appears that for getting the rebate claim, the invoices and duty-paid character got verified by the department form the Range official. Further, the appellant, as soon as he came to know about the whole episode, has returned the rebate sanctioned to him. Keeping in view the overall facts and the conduct of the appellant during purchase of the goods, claiming the rebate and also during investigation, etc. we are of the view that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellants main submission is that the appellant has not received the show cause notice which was issued to the appellant at his residential address and hence the order-in-original was passed in gross violation of natural justice. It was also submitted that in his statement, the appellant has stated that he was not concerned with Monica Impex in any way and hence no penalty is imposable on him. 10.2. We are not impressed by any of these arguments. We find from the impugned order that the show cause notice was serviced on all the appellants. It is not the appellants case that the show cause notice was not served on the old address. It was his responsibility to ensure that such documents which are sent at his old residential address are re-directed to the new address by informing the concerned postal authorities. Appellant also did not care to inform the Revenue about the change of address. It is also seen from the impugned order that the personal hearings were held on more than 10 occasions and on each occasion not only the personal hearing notice was sent through the known postal address but also got serviced through jurisdictional excise authorities. Under these circumstances ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h indicates the conduct of the appellant during investigation and (xvi), (xvii) which are again relating to financial transaction. From the investigation it is clear that no goods were transported from the Bhiwandi godown to Surat by Muni Group of Companies and the concerned transporter was found to be fake and non-existent. Money transaction between the appellant and Muni Group of Companies clearly brings out that the appellant has issued two types of cheques viz. account payee and the other 'crossed bearer'. In respect of account payee cheques, the cheques were deposited in the account of Muni Group of Companies. However, on the same date other cheques were issued from such banks/accounts in the name of certain textile firms which in turn were encashed or got discounted by the appellant. Similarly, in the case of crossed bearer cheques, these are either deposited in the name of the textile dealers of Surat even though these were purported to be shown as paid to Muni Group of Companies or these were again discounted or encashed by the appellant themselves. We also note that, after providing initial details, the appellant did not further cooperate in the investigation and also coul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under which provisions of law the goods allegedly procured from the market and exported after processing are liable to confiscation. We have already discussed in para 8 to 8.6 how the goods in such cases will be liable to confiscation and penalty under Rule 26. We also note that the penalty imposed is not on the higher side keeping in view the CENVAT credit availed by the appellant. Under the circumstances, we dismiss the appeal filed by the appellant. 13. Appeal No. E/676/2010: Shri Prakash Poddar appellant is authorised signatory of Karishma Overseas & Sheetal Exports. The investigations have revealed that present appellant was following similar modus operandi as is in the case of Shri Yudhishtir Batra and also exported the goods as merchant exporter. In his statement, SHri Poddar has stated that he has purchased the goods from Muni Group of Companies and one Shri Ajay Mittal of Surat approached him with the offer to deliver goods at their office with transport arranged by him. Shri Poddar has produced copies of lorry receipts of transporter Sahara Roadlines, Cottongreen, Mumbai and the said transporter lateron, on investigation was found to be fake. Thus transportation of good ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8377; 1 crore on the basis of such invoices. During investigation he could not give the details of mills from where the goods were processed. Investigation also revealed that the payments purported to have been made to Muni Group of Companies were followed by cheques issued from Muni Group of Companies which were discounted by his partner and cash received back as per the statements of the shroffs. During the confrontation he could not explain any of these details. We also note that during the arguments before this Tribunal the appellant has not disputed the fraudulent nature of the transactions carried out by them. The learned counsel has only disputed the applicability of Rule 26 in their case. We have already discussed the same in para 8 to 8.6 and in view of the said discussion the contention of the learned counsel is rejected. We also note that the penalty imposed is not on the higher side keeping in view the amount of credit involved. Appeal filed is therefore dismissed. 15. Appeal No. E/682/2010: Appellant Shri Manohar Mali, was Proprietor of Shree Ganesh Enterprises: It is seen that the appellant in his statement dated 31/01/2008 has admitted that he was the proprietor of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orking as merchant exporters and were also Rule 12B manufacturers. In the present case, during investigation, appellant was not even able to give name and address of the representative of Muni Group of Companies who approached the three firms. Similarly, he was not able to explain, in the absence of any packing list, etc. how he was able to repack and export the goods. Financial investigation also revealed the modus operandi similar to the case of Shri Yudhishtir Kumar Batra in para 11 above. A detailed investigation was taken up regarding the financial transactions and it was found a large number of cheques purported as payment made to Muni Group of Companies were actually not deposited into their account and large number of such cheques were discounted through shroffs Shri Shrenik Varaiya and Yatidra Jain and Shri Nilesh Jain, who, after going through the cheques confirmed that these cheques were discounted and the cash was given to the present appellant only. The details of the various cheques and how the manipulations were made is elaborated in para (viii.) of page No. 79 onwards of the impugned order. The crossed bearer cheques issued by the three firms issued in the name of M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hority has given no comments on the said order. Further, the department has not challenged the said order and therefore, has achieved finality. 16.4. It was also submitted that Rule 25 is attracted only in four categories of persons mentioned therein i.e. producer, manufacturer, registered person of a warehouse or a registered dealer. Since the appellant is none of them, therefore, provisions of Rule 25 is not applicable and hence no penalty can be imposed under Rule 26. It was further submitted that if it is presumed that the person Muni Group has not supplied any goods to the merchant exporter, then also no penalty can be imposed under Rule 26 prior to 01/03/2007 as merchant exporter has only acted as a dealer. It was also submitted that the case laws submitted by the department are in different circumstances and cannot be relied upon. Learned counsel also submitted that since the goods are exported these are not dutiable and the maximum penalty that can be imposed under Rule 26 is ₹ 10,000/- and the penalty of ₹ 5 lakhs is unsustainable and should be set aside. 16.5. Investigations have revealed that no goods were supplied by Muni Group of Companies and the transpo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not find any merits in the appeal and is therefore dismissed. Penalty imposed is also not on the higher side. 17. Appeal No: E/733/2010: Shri Ajit Singh B Choraria is the Proprietor of Shubham Silk Mills, and also Authorised Signatory of Shubham Textiles, Shubhlaxmi Textiles and Shubhlaxmi Exports. The appellant is a Rule 12B manufacturer. In the case of the present appellant, he purported to have procured grey fabrics from certain sources, got it processed from certain processors and thereafter, the appellant has issued his invoices to Muni Group of Companies in respect of the processed fabrics. The case of the Revenue is that no processed fabrics was actually supplied to Muni Group of Companies by the appellant and only invoices purportedly showing payment of duty were supplied to Muni Group of Companies and based upon such invoices, Muni Group of Companies, in turn issued invoices to various persons which enabled them to claim rebate without supplying any goods. It is seen that the appellant, though initially presented himself for investigation, but in reality did not produce the relevant documents which would indicate that the sale transaction between him and Muni Group of Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have major role inasmuch as the money was withdrawn and then handed over. Role Shri Ajay Mittal is discussed in para (v)(a) of page 56 of the impugned order as also in para (vii) (a), (b) of page 57 and 58. From the investigation it appears that he was maintaining accounts in number of banks such as UTI, IDBI, Metro, Century and Rajkot Banks. It also appears that Shri Ajay Mittal has also used Shri Shyam Sunder Sharma for his nefarious activities. From the investigation it is very clear that the appellant was concerned with the invoices of Muni Group covering purported sale of certain goods and therefore, the same are liable to confiscation under Rule 25(1)(d) and appellant is liable to penalty under Rule 26. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant has been on the legal side relating to applicability of Rule 26 which we have already discussed in para 8 to 8.6. In view of the said decision, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed. Penalty imposed is not on the higher side and is therefore upheld. 19. Appeal No: E/782/2010: The appellant in this case is one Shri Naresh J. Doshi, partner of Doshi Impex. The learned counsel has submitted that the present proceedings ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i Naresh Doshi tried to deny. 19.2. Keeping in view the over all facts of the case, it is clear that the appellant knowingly involved in the fraudulent availment of CENVAT credit on the bogus documents of Muni Group of Companies without receiving any goods. The appellant is, therefore, liable to penalty under Rule 26. The penalty imposed on him is not on the higher side and is upheld. The appeal filed by Shri Naresh Doshi is dismissed. 20. Appeal No: E/797/2010: The appellant in this case is one Shri Farooq Razazk Gazi, proprietor of M/s Glory Exports. In his statement, the appellant has submitted that one Shri Tejas Desai had approached him on behalf of Muni Group of Companies and stated that he would arrange goods on 1% brokerage basis with door delivery and accordingly he had purchased the goods and he was not in a position to state whether the goods had actually arrived from Bhiwandi or somewhere else. He also submitted that they have made payments after the receipt of the goods to Shri Tejas Desai. He also submitted that CHA for the export was M/s. Royale Clefford Pvt. Ltd. and the transporter for the goods from Surat to JNPT was M/s. South Gujarat Transport Service. Investi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... c, on page 41, para 11, 11(a) of page 72 of the impugned order, the details as to how the cheques were presented and who were the ultimate beneficiary and how the same were bought and encashed through the discounters are detailed. From these details it is very clear that no money had gone to M/s. Venkatesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. but were received back by Ayush Export. 21.2. Keeping in view the above facts, it is very clear that the appellant knowingly procured the cheap fabrics from somewhere else and invoices were only procured from Muni Group of Companies. The goods exported are purported to be covered by invoices of Muni Group of Companies which are liable to confiscation under Rule 25(1)(d) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Penalty is therefore imposable on the appellant and the penalty imposed is not on the higher side. The appeal filed by the appellant is therefore dismissed. 22. Appeal No. E/910/2010: The appellant in this case is Shri Sumit H. Juneja, proprietor, Keshav Impex and Raghukul Impex. The appellant is a merchant exporter and exported the goods on the basis of ARE1 and invoices of Muni Group without receiving any goods from Muni Group and claimed rebate. During ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to explain anything about the transportation and storage of the goods and how such goods transportation has taken place between them. Investigation also indicated that the discounted amount was received back by the present appellant. From the investigation it is clear that the appellant was instrumental in fraud which lead to availment of CENVAT credit based on the invoices of Muni Group of Companies without purchase of any goods from Muni Group of Companies. The appellant is therefore liable to penalty under Rule 26. Keeping in view the level of fraud conducted by the present appellant the penalty imposed on him is not on the higher side. The appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed. 24. Appeal E/1621/2010: In this case, the appellant is one Shri Mahendra Agarwal who is the authorised signatory of M/s. Chandan Impex. The appellant is a merchant exporter and he has used the invoices and ARE-1 of Muni Group of Companies and claimed rebate against those exports. In his statement the appellant has clearly stated that Shri Ajitsingh Choraria had arranged ARE-1 issued by Muni Group of Companies and goods cleared from his firm M/s. Pooja Dyeing and other goods were shown as if covere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
