9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1240X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Kanpur under Rule 12 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 and Rule 14 of Cevnat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11A and Proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 along with interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Further penalty of Rs. 10,93,074/- to M/s Ram Shiv Industries Ltd., Kanpur, under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 13 (2) & 15(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002/2004, further penalty of Rs. 10lakhs upon Shri Suraj Prakash- Director of M/s Ram Shiv Industries Ltd., Kanpur under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the M/s Ram Shiv Industries Ltd., Kanpur a partnership firm was engaged in manufacture of Angl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of details of M/s Jwala Steels, appearing on their invoices and invoices issued by M/s M.K. Steels showing M/s Jwala Steels, as manufacturer, it was observed that there was difference in their Registration number, ECC number and the running serial numbers of the invoices for the same period. Since the party had also purchased M.S. Ingots directly from the said manufacturer they were aware of the genuineness of the manufacturer. Thus, it clearly shows that the party had not verified the genuineness of the invoices issued by the dealer M/s M.K. Steels. Accordingly, show cause notice dated 10.04.2008 was issued to the party and two related persons. The said show cause notice was decided through the Order in Original dated 30.10.2009 whereby h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her denial of Cenvat credit or impose penalty on the respondents. 4. Further, vide impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 22.04.2010 learned Commissioner (Appeals) held that the respondent had availed Cenvat credit on the strength of invoices issued by the dealer duly accompanied by Form-31, issued by State Government Department, He further mentioned that the department neirther made any allegation or put forth any evidence that the appellant had received any alternative inputs/materials to substitute goods covered under the said invoices nor any discrepancy in stocks, accounts or returns were ever pointed out by any visiting team of the department. He also made reference of the CBEC Circular No.766/82/2003-CX dated 15.12.2003. Accordingly, learne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... td., Kolkata where received by the assessee and were entered in the Cenvat credit account. Inputs were used for the manufacture of final products, which were cleared against payment of duty. On enquiry by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Bolpur, it was found that the original manufacture of MS Ingots, namely; M/s Sarala Ispat (P) Ltd., Durgapur, was non-existent. The assessee availed of the Cenvat credit on the strength of invoices, which were issued by M/s M. K. Steels Pvt. Ltd., (Trader-Dealer) which was the first stage dealer. A notice to show cause was issued to the assessee which resulted in an order of adjudication confirming the demand of duty under Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11A(1) of Central E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Commissioner (Appeals) also relied on a circular of CBEC dated 15/12/2003 clarifying that Cenvat should not be denied to a user manufacturer as long as bona-fide nature of the consignee s transaction is not doubted. Moreover, if the manufacturer supplier has received payment from the buyer in respect of the goods supplied including Excise duty, action should be initiated against him under Sections 11D & 11DD. In the circumstances, it was held that Cenvat credit could not be denied to the assessee. The Hon'ble High Court further took notice that both the Commissioner (Appeals) have given cogent reasons to indicate that the assessee had taken reasonable steps to ensure that the inputs in respect of which he has taken the Cenvat credit are g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eels Pvt. Ltd. was registered as a dealer with the Revenue and the invoices issued by him reflected his registration number. As such, I fully agree with the finding of the Appellate Authority that denial of credit to the respondent manufacturing unit on the ground that first stage dealer has fraudulently received the goods is neither proper nor justified. Reliance by the Appellate Authority on various Tribunal s decision is proper." 6. The ld. A. R. for Revenue have relied on the Order-in-Original and the grounds of appeal. He further states that there is difference in the facts of Juhi Alloys Ltd & M/s Ram Shiv Industries Ltd. as compared to these parties. In the case of these parties, the element of fraud and collusion is writ large on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
