9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 478X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t on channels, Joist, C.R. Strips, H.R. Coils, G.R. Strips, Angles etc. on the invoices issued by M/s Bansal Structurals Pvt. Ltd., M/S Bhawna Steels, M/s Bhagwati Traders and M/s V.K. Enterprises who were either first stage or second stage dealers registered with Central Excise Department. The department also conducted enquiries from traders, who had supplied inputs and transporters through whom, the inputs were received by the appellants and it appeared to Revenue that the appellant did not receive the inputs and it was alleged that Cenvat Credit in respect of inputs, was availed by the appellants without actually receiving the inputs into their factory. The basis for such allegation was various statements obtained by Revenue from dealers who supplied materials and owners of Transport Company. Additional Director General, DGCEI, New Delhi, on the basis of said investigation, issued the said Show Cause Notice dated 31.08.2007, calling upon M/s Raj Ratan Casting Pvt. Ltd. to show cause as to why Cenvat Credit amounting to Rs. 76,16,327/- which was alleged to be wrongly taken on the inputs on the basis of invoices without receiving the inputs should not be recovered from them in add ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of 4 witnesses namely Shri Girija Shankar Tiwari, Shri Kailash Kumar Sharma, Shri Mahaveer Prasad Jain and Shri Anand Prakash, revealed that the appellant had received the inputs in their factory and was consumed by appellant in their factory for manufacture of M. S. Ingots. The learned Original Authority decided the said Show Cause Notice through impugned order in Original No.11/Comm./MP/2008 dated 31.12.2008. The Learned Original Authority confirmed the demand of Cenvat Credit of amounting to Rs. 76,16,327/- and also Cenvat Credit of Rs. 17,78,078/-, ordered both the manufacturer assesses to pay interest. It imposed equal penalty on both manufacturer assesses. It also appropriated Rs. 5 lakh from M/s Raj Ratan Casting Ltd., & Rs. 10 lakh from M/s Raj Ratan Ind. Ltd. and imposed personal penalty of Rs. 4 lakh on Shri Sunil Khatri and that of Rs. 1 lakh on Shri Jai Kisan Khatri. Against the impugned order, the appellants filed present appeals. 4. The grounds of appeal, inter-alia, include the grounds as follows: (i) It is well settled principle of law as held in following cases: 2005(188) E.L.T. 107 (TRIB) SANKET FOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. VS. C. of C.EX. 2006(193) E.L.T. 48 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d from the said dealers. Therefore, the entire demand is time barred. 5.1 Learned counsel for the appellant argued and stated that the following facts are undisputed : (i) Input received from registered dealer, who were regularly filing their returns and no objection was ever raised by the department. (ii) The manufacturer from whom the dealers purchased the goods were in existence and genuine and clearances were made on payment of duty. (iii) Goods supplied by the dealers were duly covered with the proper GRs. (iv) Payment to the dealer were made through banking channels. However inputs of value of Rs. 1,35,79,412/- was received from the dealer M/S Bansal Stuctural Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad and ingots valued of Rs. 78,32,106/- was sold to them. The remaining payment of Rs. 57,47,307/- was made through cheque. There is no evidence of money flow back. (v) The goods cleared by the dealers under cover of form 49 issued by the Vat department and their assessment were also made by the Vat department. (vi) Payments to the transporters were made in cash. (vii) There is no case of the department that the appellant had procured inputs from somewhere else and the inputs of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there has to be objective formation of opinion based on sufficient material on record to come to the conclusion that such a ground exists. Before forming such an opinion, the quasi judicial authority would confront the assessee as well, during the proceedings, which shall give the assessee a chance to make his submissions in this behalf. It goes without saying that the authority would record reasons, based upon the said material, for such a decision effectively. Therefore, the elements of giving opportunity and recording of reasons are inherent in the exercise of powers. The aggrieved party is not remediless. This order/opinion formed by the quasi judicial authority is subject to judicial review by the appellate authority. The aggrieved party can always challenge that in a particular case invocation of such a provision was not warranted." 5.3 The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that Commissioner erred in accepting the statements of witnesses, whom, he could not produce for cross-examination and, therefore, findings of Commissioner for confirming the demand based on acceptance of such statements of such witnesses who were not produced for cross-examination, is n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
