9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1555X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... auto parts and had purchased inputs from a first stage dealer M/s Regal Metal & Ferro Alloys. Revenue received the intelligence that the dealer had purchased wire rods from different manufacturers but issued invoices for steel rods to appellant resulting in availment of irregular Cenvat credit by appellants on the basis of improper invoices issued by the first stage dealer. A statement of Sh. Jagdish Sharma, Accountant-cum-authorized signatory of the appellant was recorded on 24.02.2010, in which he admitted that they had never received the wire rods in their factory premises. A show cause notice was issued. In adjudication, the demand of Rs. 3,06,162/- was confirmed along with interest and penalty of equivalent amount was imposed on the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tually supplying the goods manufactured by the appellants. This is supported by the statement of Sh. Jagdish Sharma that they did not receive the wire rods in their factory premises. In this context, the following findings of the adjudicating authority are particularly relevant: "From the statement dt. 24.02.2010 tendered by Sh. Jagdish Sharma, Accountant-cum-authorized person, it is found that the said dealer had actually not supplied the same goods to the noticee which he had received from the supplier/manufacturer and the said dealer had actually substituted the materials by another material against the cited invoices. Their dealer has changed the description & tariff heading of the goods on the invoices to facilitate the noticee to av ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paid. Thus, it is found that the Noticee had indulged in the wrong availment of CENVAT Credit with the connivance of the dealer for the different goods on which no duty was paid by the manufacturer/supplier." 5. In their pleadings, the appellants have pleaded on limitation on the search and seizure were made on 03.04.2007 and investigation was complete by June 2007, but the show cause notice was issued on 25.03.2010. The contention of the appellants is not legally sustainable because the appellants had clearly suppressed the facts, which came to light only during the investigation. Once there is element of suppression, the Department is well within its powers to issue a show cause notice within 5 years of the relevant date i.e. filing of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
