9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 33X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evenue had withdrawn the appeal by filing a miscellaneous application. The said appeal was allowed to be withdrawn, as the amount of penalty was below the threshold limit prescribed in the litigation policy. In the case of Shri Pradeep Gaur, the facts are identical and the penalty imposed is ₹ 2.00 lakhs which is below the threshold limit prescribed in the litigation policy. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the Revenue in the case of Shri Pradeep Gaur is dismissed. Invokation of extended period of limitation - Demand - credit taken during 2005 has been raised in 2010 - Held that:- the order-in-original does not record any ground for upholding the extended period of limitation and also does not examine the documents submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... old to various people around Delhi. Various statements of transporters and CHA were recorded. As a consequence of the aforesaid investigation, it was concluded that M/s.Nakoda Trading Corporation had not received the imported goods. M/s.Nakoda Trading Corporation had on record shown the sale of imported goods to the appellants and the countervailing duty paid on the imported goods was transferred to the appellant by issue of invoices, on which the appellant had taken the credit. The demand was confirmed by lower authorities and penalty was also imposed on various people including Shri Pradeep Gaur, partner of the appellant. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the demand and penalty on the appellant, M/s.Copper Semis Pvt. Ltd. but se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to assert that they had indeed received the goods. However, order-in-original did not examine any of the said records. The learned Counsel produced the said records and showed the details in respect of one such invoice. In respect of invoice No.50 dated 09/07/2005 which showed that re-melted copper ingots weighting 5019 Kgs were sent by Skoda Trading Corporation to the appellants. The said invoice issued under Rule 11 of the Cenvat Credit Rules also shown the details of the imports made at the bottom. He also showed me the commercial invoice of M/s.Nakoda Trading Corporation also dated 09/07/2005. In respect of this invoice, he showed me the weighbridge receipt also dated 09/07/2005 and Truck Number on the weighbridge receipt and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e consigned to first appellant and can not be received by first appellant. The learned Counsel argued that the entire case is based on the statements of various people whose cross-examinations were sought, Revenue is asking the appellant to prove that the goods received by them were the same as the goods which were imported by the supplier. He argued that this clearly defines logic and against the principles of natural justice. He further argued that none of the statements relied upon pointed out any wrong doing on behalf of the appellant. The appellant has not been involved in any kind of fraud, mis-statement, etc. He pointed out that the fact that the appellants have received goods of the same description as that appears in the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f cited cases is not applicable in the present case . 5. The learned AR relied on large number of case laws states that no cross-examination is necessary. He relied on the decision of Tribunal in the case of Jagdish Shanker Trivedi Vs. CC Kanpur - 2006 (194) ELT 290 (Tri-Del). He also relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Praveen Juneja Vs. CC, New Delhi - 2002 (148) ELT 756 (Tri-Del), Kartarlal Puranmal Parpiyani Vs. CCE, Aurangabad - 2002 (142) ELT 366 (Tri-Mum). The learned AR argued that while receipt of goods of similar description by the appellant is not disputed, he argued that fraud has been committed in respect of these goods by the importer. He argued that since the supplier of goods is engaged in fraud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellants along with the said invoice. Even the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the extended period of limitation by stating as follows: The first appellant also argued that extended period can not be invoked as there is no willful suppression/fraud, etc. on the part of the appellant and cited case laws. I will discuss cases cited by the appellant, one by one. In case of Marmago Steel Ltd. Vs. CCe Panaji reported in 2001 (137) ELT T381 (Tr-Mum), the clause of suppression was not found sustainable against appellant as they had declared the details of credit taken in the RG23A Pt.II register. Similarly, in case of Johnson and Johnson Ltd.Vs. Commissioner (Appeals) Mumbai-II reported at 2002 (149) ELT 1340 (Commissioner Appeal) suppressi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
