9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1378X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and supply of the material. Thus appellant have availed fraudulent Cenvat credit. The appellant have availed Cenvat credit fraudulently without receipt of the goods - appeal dismissed - decided against assessee. - APPEAL No. E/607 TO 609/10 - Order No.A/88096-88098/16/SMB - Dated:- 21-6-2016 - Mr Ramesh Nair, Member(Judicial) Shri. R.V. Shetty, Advocate for the Appellants Shri. Ashutosh Nath, Asstt. Commissioner (A.R.) for the Respondent Per : Ramesh Nair These appeals are directed against Order-in-Appeal No. AKP/23 to 25/NSK/2010 dated 27/1/2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise Customs(Appeals), Nashik whereby Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) upheld the Order-in-Original in toto. 2. The fact of the present case is that the appellant M/s. MITC Rolling Mills Pvt Ltd is registered for the manufacture of mild steel (M.S.) ingots falling under Chapter 72 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and availing the Cenvat facility under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. An information was received that M/s. MITC had availed irregular and fraudulent Cenvat credit on the invoices issued by M/s. Jindal Iron Steel Co. Ltd.(formerly known as M/s. Ji ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e submits that the word transport documents includes bilties which were issued by M/s. Diamond Roadways. These bilties are in the name of the M/s. MITC Rolling Mills Pvt Ltd. If the goods were meant for delivery at Viramgam and if the transports had the knowledge of the aforesaid fact then what made to M/s. Jindal Iron Steel Co. Ltd. to write the name of the M/s. MITC Rolling Mills Pvt Ltd in the excise invoices. (b) As regard the confessional statements of the truck owners, he submits that Adjudicating authority and first appellate authorities have erred grossly while examining the transporters statements, as there is no corroboration with the material documents with the statements. He further submits that investigation was not held at M/s. Jindal Iron Steel Co. Ltd as in the show cause notice it was held that transporter used to arrange for trucks to lift H.R. Trimmings from M/s. Jindal Iron Steel Co. Ltd. and he was informing the registration number of truck to Viramgam based parties who, in turn, were informing M/s. Jindal Iron Steel Co. Ltd.. He further submits that the cause of action initiated from the premises of M/s. Jindal Iron Steel Co. Ltd. as it rel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner of Central Excise Thane-I[ Order No.A/1906-1912/15/EB(Tribunal)]. (b) Bhagwati Steel Cast Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, nashik [Order No. A/1950-1967/15/EB(Tribunal)]. (c) Sujana Metal Products Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane-I[A/204-215/14/EB/C-II] (d) MTC Business Pvt Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai[2015(330) ELT 570(Tri. Mum)] (e) Agarwal Metals Alloys Unit-II Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. S.T. Vap[2015(325)ELT 276(Bom)] (f) Harsaran Dass Sita Ram Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. Pandhkula[2015(322) ELT 686(P H)] 5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the record. 6. I find that this is a case of fraudulent Cenvat credit availed on the invoices issued by the dealer namely M/s. Jindal Iron Steel Co. Ltd. On the identical facts and under same investigation in many other cases, demands were confirmed. On comparison with these cases disposed of by this Tribunal in particular Amar Ispat Pvt Ltd(supra), the facts, evidences and modus operandi of the appellants as well as in case of Amar Ispat Pvt Ltd (supra) are same therefore this case also can be decided only on the basis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it does not prove genuineness of the transaction. We are unable to understand that how the appellant is not able to produce any document relating to transport or receipt of the goods such as goods receipt note, independent weighment slip, gate register lorry receipt, payment receipts (which are normally given by the drivers of such vehicles) or any document of the transporter to prove that the goods covered by the invoices did travel from Jindals' units in Vasind and Tarapur to appellant's factory. We also note that almost in all transactions, the vehicle registration numbers are of Gujarat It is a common knowledge that a vehicle registered in Gujarat cannot undertake the freight movement from one place to the other within the State of Maharashtra. Such vehicle can only take the interstate freight, i.e. Maharashtra to Gujarat in this case. Moreover, HR trimmings in coil form are very different from bazaari/scavenger scrap and can be distinguished by any person in the business. 9.0 In the present case, the Revenue has presented a catena of evidences which include the transporter's record etc. as is evident from para 93 of the impugned order. These include, - ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Steel Co. Shahapur 1302059 4.6.03 3 Jindal Iron and Steel Co. Shahapur 1308745 21.11.03 4 Jindal Iron and Steel Co. Tarapur 13102274 5.7.03 5 Jindal Iron and Steel Co. Tarapur 13103087 1.8.03 6 Jindal Iron and Steel Co. Tarapur 1207371 12.8.03 7 Jindal Steel Alloys Ltd. Vasind 1207371 17.12.02 8 Jindal Steel Alloys Ltd. Vasind 1207731 28.12.02 Many of these are in addition to the statements, as against this the appellant was not able to produce any evidence regarding transport any receipt of the goods in respect of any of the invoices. In our considered view, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itution under which no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. Section 124(c) which provided that no order confiscating any goods or imposing any penalty on any person shall be made under Chapter IV unless the owner of the goods or such person is given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter, does not specify any right of cross-examination. 11. Another contention of the learned counsel for the appellants was that the statements a-re at times self contradictory or are contradicting each other's statements. We have gone through the statements. While there are some variations in the statements, in our considered view, these variations are not fatal in the facts and circumstances of the present case. It is a common knowledge that the persons who are familiar with the excise laws and are aware about the violations of excise law, they are indulging in them they do not disclose proper and true facts at the first instance and they tend to give at times misleading explanations. In the present case also, generally the co-noticees have said in the statements after assessing the information already available with the investigati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
