9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 1122X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Chachan Metals Pvt. Ltd., Shamli dated 18/9/2007, certifying that the goods covered by the invoice where received directly from factory/Depot/consignment agent located at Ramchandrapur, Orissa. As find that the adjudicating authority misread the document by interpreting it as this certificate is given by the appellant leading to the illogical conclusion drawn. Thus, find that the impugned orders suffer with mistake of fact and accordingly, the same is fit to be set aside. Further it is the admitted case of Revenue that M/s Chachan Metals Pvt. Ltd., Shamli, received the goods along with the endorsed invoices, which is a normal trade practice where goods are resold during transit. That there is nothing wrong in diverting the goods in transi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issued in the name of M/s Chachan Metal Pvt. Ltd., Kanpur, having a separate Central Excise Registration number, which is also registered dealer under Central Excise. M/s Chachan Metal Pvt. Ltd., Shamli, neither at the time of audit nor thereafter was able to submit any proof regarding movement of material from Kanpur to Shamli, under the cover of the said endorsed invoices. According to the records, M/s Chachan Metals Pvt. Ltd., Shamli, had issued 10 invoices to the appellant-M/s Tribhuvan Industries Ltd., Lucknow. This information was communicated to the Asstt. Commissioner having jurisdiction over the appellant by the Suptd. of Central Excise in Shamli vide letter dated 28/8/2012. Based on this letter, show cause notice dated 18/9/12 was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sponge iron. For any lapse on the part of M/s Chachan Metals Pvt. Ltd., Shamli to show the documents in support of transportation from Kanpur office to Shamli, cannot lead to adverse inference against the appellant. It was also pleaded that if there is any shortcoming on the part of the supplier, M/s Chachan Metals Pvt. Ltd., then revenue can take action on them but not on the present appellant under the facts and circumstances of the case. There is no malafide or contumacious conduct on the part of the appellants, hence, extended period of limitation is not invokable. Further, reliance was placed on the ruling of this Tribunal in the case of M/s Sadashiv Castings : 2005 (187) ELT 487, wherein invoices under which, assessee had received th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bunal had observed that the goods have been received with proper documents showing payment of duty and there being no dispute about the credentials of the cenvatable invoices issued by registered dealer and accompanying goods, the buyer cannot be expected to go beyond that to verify and find out as to whether the registered dealer had purchased the same legally or not. 5. The SCN was adjudicated vide OIO dated 16.08.2013, wherein the proposed demand of duty was confirmed with interest and equal amount of penalty was imposed under Rule 15 of CCR read with section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It was also observed that the invoice issued by M/s Chachan Metals Pvt. Ltd. Shambli, are not issued by first stage dealer and M/s Chachan Me ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9 dated 18/9/2007 issued by M/s Chachan Metals Pvt. Ltd., Shamli showed the goods as received at Ramchandrapur on 10/9/2007. The bilty/consignment note number 726 dated 6/9/2007, issued one M/s Kaushalya Roadways,, Orissa for Truck No.UP78 BN-4321 showed the consignment to be heading to Kanpur from Keonjhar, (Orissa) on 6/9/2007 also as the goods were allegedly forwarded/transferred to M/s Chachan Metals Pvt. Ltd., Shamli by M/s Chachan Metals Pvt. Ltd., Kanpur and received by the dealer at Shamli on 12/9/2007, they cannot claim to have the possession of subject goods at Ramchandrapur on 10/9/2007. Accordingly the invoices were held to be not proper duty paying documents as it appeared to revenue's that goods did not accompany with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f assessee was audited several times and physical inspections carried out by the Revenue during the period of dispute, case of suppression is not made out and accordingly, it was held that extended period of limitation is not attracted. Reliance is also placed on the ruling of this Tribunal in the case of S. K. Foils Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Central Excise, Rohtak : 2015 (315) ELT 258 (Delhi-Tribunal) wherein the allegation by the Revenue that the first stage dealer was not in existence under the fact that raw materials received by the assessee which were used by him in the manufacture of the final products on which appropriate duty of Excise was paid and monthly returns, were filed, it was held that the burden placed upon manufacture under Rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
