9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 461X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... instructions for supplying a particular variety of scrap. How that scrap can be used in induction furnace was duly explained. This is not, therefore, a case of irregular availment of the Modvat Credit - Eventually when the documents placed on record themselves point out that all types of scrap were utilised by the assessee, then, one cannot just pick and choose any statement or single out a document to deny the Modvat Credit - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 85 OF 2006 WITH CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 154 OF 2006, CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO.155 OF 2006, CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO.157 OF 2006, & CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO.158 OF 2006 - - - Dated:- 27-2-2017 - S.C. DHARMADHIKARI B.P. COLABAWALLA, JJ. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /s Steel Traders and setting aside the demand for ₹ 1,05,18,891/confirmed by the Commissioner of Central Excise under Rule 57(i)(ii) read with Rule 57AH(i) and Rule 12 of Central Excise Rules, 2001 read with proviso to section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944? (B) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CESTAT was justified in setting aside the penalty of ₹ 1,05,18,891/equal to amount of duty imposed by the Commissioner Central Excise upon M/s Business Combine Ltd. under Rule 13(O) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2001 read with section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944? (C) Whether the CESTAT was justified in setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise in respect of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enabling the availing of credit on inputs. That existed prior to 31.3.2000. The allegation is that Rule 57A, Rule 57AA, Rule 57G and Rule 57AE(2)(a) which were brought in by the Cenvat Credit Scheme have been violated with an intent to evade the payment of central excise duty. The allegation is that the assessee Mahindra Mahindra, in collusion with the central excise registered dealers, have fraudulently availed Modvat/Cenvat Credit on Punched Bundled Cold Rolled Closed Annealed Scrap, known as Market Scrap or Bazar Scrap generally generated during the process of manufacture of stamping, lamination, PP Caps, etc., received from such dealers in place of the original goods, namely, Off Cuts of M.S. Sheets, M.S. Scrap, Ferrous Waste S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Tribunal concluded that it is not possible to agree with the Revenue and for the reasons recorded in that order. The Tribunal's conclusion on each of the findings in the Order-in-Original are set out. The main issue was, whether the description of CRCA scrap actually observed and M.S. Off Cuts, etc., mentioned on the duty documents would lead to a conclusion that the inputs allegedly received and taken credit were not covered by the duty paid documents. The Tribunal held that the Commissioner was carried away into believing the statement of functionaries of Mahindra Mahindra that M.S. Sheet Off Cuts were not received but orders were placed for supplying CRCA sheet punched scrap and the same was received. One Mr. Patankar, Senior Ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the conclusion that the duty, interest and penalty orders deserve to be set aside. The Tribunal found that denial of credit on the dealers' invoices cannot be upheld when no efforts are made to bring this activity of the dealers under excisable manufacture. If the dealers' status is not questioned, then, their records, as maintained, cannot be faulted. The Tribunal found that the quantum of credit as availed of cannot be denied because as per the documents, there is nothing to indicate that the physical quantity is short or that there is duty quantum difference which could be said to be found. The Tribunal has found that there is no allegation or finding of short receipt of scrap than as shown as quantity in the Modvat Credit av ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment and seriously canvassed that the CESTAT failed to appreciate that the assessee Mahindra Mahindra did not inform the Department that they received only punched bundled scrap of CRCA against the description of goods in the subject invoices. Then the argument was that the employees of the assessee Mahindra Mahindra admitted in unequivocal term that only CRCA punched sheet scrap, in bundle form, was received by them and no other scrap was received. Thus, we cannot reappreciate or reappraise the materials placed on record. The Tribunal did not appreciate that all the documentation such as vendor audit, purchase order, delivery challan and commercial invoices reflect that the assessee received only CRCA punched sheet scrap, in bundle for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
