9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 838X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [Order Per Sulekha Beevi, C. S.] 1. The appellants are manufacturers of Aluminium Chloride and are availing the facility of CENVAT Credit on inputs like Aluminium Bars/Rods/Plates/Sheets and Chlorine. They were procuring the raw materials from M/s Karnataka Metal Company (KMC), Secundarabad and also from M/s Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd., (BALCO) and others. 2. On gathering intelligence that KMC was indulging in issuing fraudulent cenvatable invoices without actual supply of raw materials to their customers, the DGCEI, Hyderabad conducted search in the office premises of KMC and the residential premises of Sh. V. Prabhakar, Manager/employee of KMC and recovered documents. KMC were dealers of M.s Agarvanshi Aluminium Ltd., M/s Pen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... akar who is a third party to proceedings. That such evidence cannot be relied for demanding duty and alleging clandestine removal of goods. It is submitted by him that the demand is made in respect of 9 consignments out of which 5 transactions were received directly from BALCO. The other 4 transactions are materials received from KMC. The appellant had proper invoices for the said transactions which are recorded in the RG-23 register. All the statutory records were maintained properly by the appellant and department does not allege any discrepancy with regard to the statutory records. So also, the details of the Vehicle No, the LR No. are found entered in the records of the appellant. He submitted that no investigation is done with regard t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated the findings in the impugned order. He submitted that the entries in the diary kept by Sh. V. Prabhakar revealed that the appellant had received invoices without supply of goods. The modus operandi engaged by Sh. V. Prabhakar was to issue fraudulent invoices to manufacturers without supply of goods and divert the said goods to customers who do not require cenvatable invoices. That the entries in the book tallied with the entries in the appellant's register and therefore it can be concluded that appellant was also part of the said activities of availing fraudulent credit. It is pointed out by the Ld. AR that the appellant did not produce any evidence (like gate register, weighment slips/challans, payment vouchers) to show that goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of cross-examination is offered to the appellants. In the present case, apart from the third party documents i.e. diary of Sh. V. Prabhakar and his statement, there is no material put forward by department to establish that the appellant has received only cenvatable invoices without receipt of any goods. The argument of Ld. AR is that appellant has not produced any documents to substantiate the receipt of goods. In the reply to the show cause notice the appellant has categorically stated that they have furnished all the records relating to the receipt of goods. That on request by Senior Intelligence Officer of department, the documents were furnished long back on 18.06.2007. In spite of this, there is a blanket denial by the department sayi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
