9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 945X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he other appellants - Shri Dinesh Aggarwal and Shri Rajesh Aggarwal are brothers and partners in the said firm. The main allegation against them as per show cause notice is that they have supplied invoices to one M/s. Delight Industries, Delhi, to facilitate the availing of cenvat credit without supplying goods. 3. The brief facts as per show cause notice are that one M/s. Delight Industries, a partnership firm whose partners are Smt. Renu Jindal, Shri Deepak and Shri Y.M. Jindal, are engaged in manufacturing of electric wire and cable, alloy tinned wire of copper, PVC compound, voltage stabilizer, transformer, etc. They are registered with the Central Excise Department and also filing their returns and paying taxes. The Revenue in the course of routine checking of their PLA/cenvat ratio, found that for the year 2013-14, the ratio had come down to 7.60% from the previous financial year 2012-13 where it was 12.21%. Accordingly, to verify the affairs, a team of officers visited M/s. Delight Industries located at Narela, Delhi, on 7 August, 2014. At the time of visit, the officers met Smt. Renu Jindal, partner and Shri Deepak, partner who were present. The officers undertook verifica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... outside the factory of M/s. Delight Industries. Thus, it appeared to Revenue that the goods in question being CR coils/strips/sheets totalling 707.645 MT, received from M/s. Amar Steel Syndicate during 21 July, 2014 to 31 July, 2014, having total value of Rs. 3,59,16,107/- (as per invoice), were physically never delivered to M/s. Delight Industries, and as such, the cenvat credit stated in the invoices (33 in number) totalling Rs. 35,71,874/- was not available and appeared to have been fraudulently availed and utilised in duty payment. It appeared that M/s. Delight Industries have taken bogus cenvat credit on the strength of invoices issued by these appellants, M/s. Amar Steel Syndicate, without supply of goods. 5. In the follow up investigation, search was conducted in the premises of appellant M/s. Amar Steel Syndicate, Loha Mandi, Faridabad in presence of witness on 30.09.2014 and Panchnama was drawn and some records were resumed. Based on the investigation, it appeared to Revenue that the appellant M/s. Amar Steel Syndicate and its partners have wrongly passed cenvat credit to M/s. Delight Industries under invoices (totalling 33 invoices) between 21 July, 2014 to 31 July, 201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Renu Jindal and Shri Y.M. Jindal. These appellants were also made co-noticee with proposal to impose penalty under Rule 25/26 read with Rule 15(A) on the partners/appellants. 6. The show cause notice was adjudicated on contest by these appellants, and not contested by M/s. Delight Industries and equal amount of penalty was imposed on M/s. Delight Industries and its two partners Smt. Renu Jindal and Shri Y.M. Jindal. Further, equal amount of penalty on Rs. 35,71,874/- was imposed on each of these appellants as stated herein before. 7. Being aggrieved these appellant preferred Appeal before the learned Commissioner(Appeals) who vide impugned, Order dismissed their Appeals. 8. The learned Counsel for the appellant assailing the impugned Order states that these appellants have denied all the allegations against them. M/s. Prompt Enterprises Private Limited, Ballabhgarh, Haryana was the first stage dealer who purchased the goods in question from M/s. Bokaro Steel Plant, Faridabad Depot (PSU). These appellants received the goods alongwith invoices issued by M/s. Prompt Enterprises Private Limited, reflecting therein that the goods in question have been subjected to duty at the end ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not brought out any evidence of diversion of these goods. 10. Statement of Smt. Renu Jindal Managing Partner of M/s. Delight Industries was recorded on 25.05.2017. Smt. Renu Jindal claimed to have re-sold the goods as such, on reversal of proportionate credit for the same, to the appellant in the month of August, 2014. When asked vide question no. 4 that on the date of search i.e. 07.08.2014 goods which came under 33 invoices were not available in the premises, Smt. Renu Jindal stated that the above mentioned goods had been sent for job work, under statement dated 25.07.2017. The text of the statement does not contain any question about the job worker to whom goods were sent or what kind of job work is got done. The statement also does not contain any question as to how the goods sold as such were sent. How were the goods transported or who was the transporter or detail of driver or the truck number, etc. In reply to question no. 3, she admitted that they had availed and utilized the credit against above mentioned invoices. However, they did sell the goods as such in next month and reversed proportionate credit for the same, to M/s. Amar Steel Syndicate in the month of Augu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent explanation is further fortified, by non finding of any discrepancy in the stock records of these appellants. It is further urged that no goods were found to have been removed clandestinely without payment of any duty. Rule 25 of CER is not applicable and accordingly penalty is fit to be set aside on this score alone. So far as the partners are concerned, it is an admitted fact that no goods were found/ appeared to be confiscable and as such, penalty under Rule 26 of CER read with Rule 15A of CCR is bad and fit to be set aside. No discrepancy was found in the books of accounts and records of these appellants. Such transaction was also found duly recorded and disclosed in the returns with the Sales Tax Department. The learned counsel also placed reliance on the following case laws: * Arvind Enterprises Vs. CCE reported in 2013 (296) E.L.T. 253(T) * Victory Impex Vs. CCE reported in 2014 (311) E.L.T. 645(T) * Rajan Engg works reported in 2012 (279) E.L.T. 306(T) * Punjab Gas Cylinder Ltd. reported in 2015 (322) E.L.T. 747(T) * Saraya Sugar Mills Ltd. reported in 2017 (358) E.L.T. 1109(T) * Super Trading Company reported in 2014 (299) E.L.T. 75(T) * VMA Enterprises P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
