9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 316X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of the appellants that they sought for cross-examination and that the same was denied. The bona fides of the appellant have not been disproved and even the statements of the very employees of the appellant confirm that what they received was MS scrap. On a perusal of the analysis of various statements recorded in the Show Cause Notice as well as the Order-in-Original, we find that nothing is apparently put across to the deponents about the “bogus” invoice raised by M/s. SIT with the description as “MS Wires/Coils”. The Department has not been able to sufficiently prove its allegations nor there is any solid documentary evidence in support of its allegations - the allegations having not been proved satisfactorily, the demand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r 73 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, the main raw materials used by them being MS Scraps which had been mainly procured from M/s. SIT; (iii) On verification of the CENVAT documents issued by M/s. SIT, it was noticed that the description mentioned in all the invoices was scraps . In the column for the particulars of the First and Second Stage Dealer also the description was mentioned as scraps . From the lab report and other records such as material inward and stock register, it was observed that the appellants had purchased only scraps. (iv) On further scrutiny of the documents it was noticed that the value of the scrap purchased by them from M/s. SIT was lesser than the purchase value of M/s. SIT. Invariably, M/s. SIT had p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... MS Coils/Wires . 2. Based on the above, it was alleged by the Revenue that : (i) The details of Credit availed by the appellants based on the invoices issued by M/s. SIT with their source documents from M/s. Karpagam Steels amounted to ₹ 8,92,979/- for the year 2006-07 and ₹ 10,52,643/- for the year 2005-06; (ii) The details of Credit availed by the appellants based on invoices issued by M/s. SIT with their source invoices from M/s. Ramesh Iron Steels amounted to ₹ 97,572/- for the year 2005-06 and ₹ 45,133/- for the year 2006-07; (iii) The details of Credit availed by the appellants based on invoices issued by M/s. SIT with their source invoices from M/s. SV Co. amounted to ₹ 4,44,374/- for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ugned Order-in-Appeal dated 31.10.2012 rejected their appeal, are in appeal before this forum. 4. Today when the cases were taken up for hearing, Ld. Advocate Shri. M. A. Mudimannan appeared for the assessee/appellants and Ld. AC (AR) Shri. B. Balamurugan appeared for the Revenue/respondent. 5. We have considered the rival contentions, gone through the documents placed on record and have also gone through the Order of this Bench in the case of M/s. Ultimate Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Anor Vs. Commissioner of G.S.T. C.Ex., Coimbatore in Final Order Nos. 42207 42208/2018 dated 02.08.2018 relied on by the Ld. Advocate. 6.1 Ld. Advocate for the appellants has primarily contended that the appellants had taken all reasonable steps under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the MD or any other person were made available for us to weigh in the light of the arguments advanced by the Ld. Advocate, as recorded supra. Nor is there any statement of dealers or office clerks. Further, on going through the Order-in-Original as well as the impugned Order-in-Appeal, we do not find any plea of the appellants herein making out a case that the uncorroborative statements have been used which should not have been done. Nor do we find any finding by the authorities below on these contentions of the Ld. Advocate and apparently therefore, these are raised for the first time before us. 9. It is not the case of the appellants that they sought for cross-examination and that the same was denied. In the decided case relied on by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of these scraps; that as per the invoice No. 134 dated 02.11.2006 issued by M/s. SIT to them was for MS scraps whereas the source invoice of M/s. Abhirami Industries No. 180/23-10-2006 to M/s. SIT was for MS Wires; that he agreed that the materials received by them and materials purchased by M/s. SIT were different. 12.1 The adjudicating authority as also recorded statements from Shri. D. Sathyamoorthy, Commercial Manager of the appellant-company, Shri. K. Vikram, Excise Assistant of the appellant-company, Shri. V. Balakrishnan, Proprietor of M/s. SIT, one Shri. S. Murugappan, Proprietor of M/s. Karpagam Steels, etc., to allege that the description of goods in the CENVAT invoices was MS scraps, but the description shown in the source doc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
