9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 860X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssed - decided against appellant. - E/179,181,182,183,187 & 188/10 - A/89530-89535/17/SMB - Dated:- 23-5-2017 - Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) None for Appellant Shri M.R. Melvin, Supdt. (A.R) for respondent ORDER Per : Ramesh Nair These appeals are directed against Order-in-Appeal No. SB/108 to 114/Th-I/09 dt.05.11.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai-I whereby Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Order-in-Original in toto. 2. The fact of the present case is that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of M.S. Ingots falling under Chapter/subheading No.7206.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They were served with Show Cause cum Demand Notice bearing No.V/Adj (SCN)15-63/Emkay/Th-I/2007 dt. 05.01.2007, proposing recovery of wrongly availed Cenvat Credit of ₹ 14,48,713/-. Information was gathered that the Induction Furnace units located in the jurisdiction of Thane-I Commissionerate were availing inadmissible CENVAT Credit on H.R. Trimmings other secondary products on the strength of invoices issued by M/s. Jindal Iron Steel Company Ltd. Vasind, Tarapur and M/s. Jindal Steel Alloys Ltd. Vasin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [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 M/s. Jindal Iron Steel Co. Ltd and M/s. Jindal Steel Alloys Ltd. On the identical facts and under same investigation in many other cases, demands were confirmed. On comparison with those 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 of decisions in above referred case as no much discussion is warranted as all the evidences which are almost common i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oduce 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, - (i) - (v) From certified copies of Annexure-1 and Annexure-2 sent by Sales Tax Officer of Bhilad Check post it was found ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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, the only conclusion to be drawn is that the goods have not been received by the appellant. 9.1 It also defies any l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 investigating officers. In the later statements when they were shown more details, they came out with correct facts. We also note ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
