9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (12) TMI 158X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls, Ludhiana is represented by Shri Rupender Singh, Advocate. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the other two Respondents as M/s. Sundesh Springs Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Antarctic Industries Ltd., though the notices of hearing had been issued to them. In view of this, the case of the other two Respondents are being decided on merits. 2. The Respondents are rolling mills engaged in the manufacture of Iron and Steel products falling under Chapter 72. They availed Cenvat credit on the basis of the invoices issued by a registered dealer-M/s. H.B.R. Steel Corporation, Ludhiana (hereinafter referred to as M/s. HBR). On the basis of investigation conducted by the Department against HBR which involved verification of the vehicle numbers mentioned on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es were found to be of two wheelers or three wheelers etc. which could not transport the goods or in some cases, where the vehicle numbers were found to be trucks, the truck owners have denied top have transported the goods. Beside this, on the date of the officer's to M/s. HBR's premises, though the RG-23D register was showing some stock, on physical verification, no stock was found to be on godown. The fictitious vehicle numbers on the invoices and the absence of any goods in the godown while the RG-23 stock register was showing some stock clearly shows that M/s. HBR were simply passing on the Cenvat credit without actually selling any goods. (2) M/s. HBR have neither been able to tell as to who had transported the goods nor have they be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... credit to the Respondents and imposing penalty on them. In this regard, he also placed reliance on the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Hitesh Silicate Industries v. CCE, Jaipur reported in 2002 (150) E.L.T. 89, wherein the Tribunal held that penal proceedings against a manufacturer taking Cenvat credit on the basis of invoices issued by a registered dealer cannot be initiated without initiating action against the dealer. (3) The Respondent have made payment to M/s. HBR by cheques/drafts. Beside this, no shortage of inputs was in the Respondents' premises. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions from both the sides. The facts of the three appeals of the Revenue are identical. In all the three cases, the Respondents claim to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this case, the Respondents other than claiming that the payment for the goods purchased from M/s. HBR had been made by cheque, no evidence regarding actual receipt of the goods had been produced. Neither the Respondents nor the registered dealer M/s. HBR have named the transporters who had transported the goods covered under the invoices, in question, nor any GRs regarding the dispatch of the goods to the consignees have been produced. In view of these circumstances, I am of the view that the impugned order setting aside the Deputy Commissioner's orders is not correct. It has been pleaded that when penalty imposed on M/s. HBR under separate proceedings has been set aside, by the Tribunal's order in the case of M/s. H.B.R. Steel Corporation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
