Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2021 (10) TMI 1169

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... VAT credit on the invoices issued by the dealers who supplied to them the raw materials used for manufacture of finished goods. On investigation, it was unearthed by the departmental officers that their dealers during the period from November 2005 to December 2006 had procured non-duty paid goods (MS scrap) locally and supplied the same to the appellant under cover of invoices and thus passed the unavailable CENVAT credit to the appellant. 3. In respect of the dealer M/s. Sri Amman Steels, it was seen that 23 invoices issued of appellant were defective as the credit passed on was not eligible. In respect of M/s. Kamaraj Steels, who was the dealer from which the appellant purchased the raw materials it was seen that 19 invoices were defecti .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ion of the goods actually sent to the appellant from the dealer. The said person namely G. Baskaran whose statement has been relied is not a person technically qualified to give details about the description of the goods. Shri Periyannan who is the Manager (Process) of the appellant factory has stated that the raw materials received from the dealers are cut and sized before use. 5. A letter issued by the Senior Manager (F&A), SAIL is relied by the department to hold that the appellant has not received the inputs as described in the invoice and supplied by the dealers. The said person who has given the letter is not a person who has technical knowledge of the goods described in the invoice. Another document relied by the department is the l .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rder. She relied upon the statement of Shri P. Periyannan of the appellant-factory and submitted that it is clearly deposed by the said person that the chemical composition of the raw materials used by the department is entirely different from the chemical composition as seen in the lab test report of M/s. SAIL. In his statement, he has admitted that the relevant lab test reports show the discrepancy in the composition of the material with respect to manganese, phosphorus and sulphur. Further the letter issued by Senior Manager (F&A) of SAIL shows that the said manufacturer is clearing goods in the nature of defective coils, carbon steel plate which cannot be used for foundries for making casting. All these would establish that the appellan .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ference in the chemical composition of the raw material as per the reports of SAIL has been the basis for concluding that the raw material received by the appellant from dealers is not the actual raw material that has been supplied from the manufacturer viz. M/s. SAIL. Though the lab test report of SAIL is produced, the department has not produced the lab test of the appellant and has merely relied on the statement of Shri P. Periyannan. Chapter IV of the Evidence Act deals with oral evidence. Section 59 states that no oral evidence can be admitted to prove the contents of a document. Section 22 states that oral evidence with regard to contents of a document can be admitted only when genuineness of a document is in question. Thus, the conte .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on the appellant. They preferred appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) and they were directed to make payment of 50% of duty and penalty as predeposit for granting stay of recovery of the balance dues. The appellant failed to comply with the predeposit and the appeal came to be rejected vide Order in Appeal No. CMB-CEX- 000-APP-110//12 dated 21.5.2012. While so, as there was no stay order in operation, the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, as per section 11 of Central Excise Act, 1944 deducted / appropriated the amounts so payable from the sanctioned rebate claim of Rs. 18,63,285/-. 14. The appellant then filed appeal before the Tribunal against the order of rejection by Commissioner (Appeals) for failure to comply with predeposit and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates