9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 30X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 016 - Mr Ramesh Nair, Member(Judicial) Shri. R.V. Shetty, Advocate for the Appellants Shri. V.K. Shastri, Asstt. Commissioner(A.R.) for the Respondent Per : Ramesh Nair These three appeals are directed against Order-in- Appeal No. AKP/26 to 28/NSK/2010 dated 27/1/2010 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) of Central Excise Customs, Nasik whereby Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) rejected appeals of the appellants and upheld the Order-in-Original in toto. 2. The brief facts of the case are that appellants are engaged in the manufacture of M.S. Ingots falling under Chapter Heading No. 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On the basis of an information received from the Dy. Commissioner, Central Excise, Mulund Divisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts were not genuine. (c) There was no physical movement of the goods from the suppliers at Alang to the said dealers in Mumbai. The officers of Mumbai-III commissionerate also visited common godown premises of both the registered dealers and drew the panchanama which confirmed that there was no physical movement of the goods from the suppliers s end to these dealers and that meager quantity of 9 tones of Iron Steel Scrap was available. Shri. Hitesh Shah, Director of M/s. Simandhar Steelmovers(I) Pvt Ltd and Proprietor of M/s. Simandhar Enterprises in his statement had categorically stated that each and every consignment of scrap sent by the suppliers, was first received and unloaded in their godown and were dispatched at later date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to different parties and with same serial numbers of invoices issued to the appellants based on the which credit was taken by the appellant. The details of invoices issued by the dealers were not appearing in their RG 23 D register which was maintained by the said dealers. 4. In view of the above corroborative evidences department issued show cause notice dated 25/2/2008 which in turn adjudicated. The adjudicating authority vide Order-in-Original dated 8/4/2009 ordered recovery of Cenvat credit amounting to ₹ 13,53,060/- from M/s. New Bombay Ispat Udyog Pvt Ltd and also ordered for recovery of interest, penalty was also imposed. The adjudicating authority further imposed personal penalty of ₹ 50,000/- each on Shr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner Of Central Excise, Raigad [2015-TIOL-1454-CESTAT-MUM], the facts, investigation and modus operandi of the appellants as well as the so called dealer M/s. Simandhar Enterprises M/s. Simandhar Steelmovers(I) Pvt Ltd. are same therefore the most of the material evidences are common. This case also can be decided only on the basis of decisions in above referred cases as no much discussion is warranted as all the evidences which are almost common in all cases cited above as well as in present case which have been gone into and observations were given by the division benches in the said decisions. In all above decisions important fact has been established that all the invoices issued by M/s. Simandhar Enterprises M/s. Simandhar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
