9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 977X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsporter cannot be relied upon. Moreover, the entire investigation and the witnesses were used for issuing show cause notice dated 30.08.2011 to Hiren Aluminium wherein the charge was that M/s. Hiren Aluminium has not received ingots sent by the appellant. Accordingly, the Cenvat credit availed by Hiren Aluminium on the same ingots was sought to be denied. The entire chain, right from procurement of aluminium ingots from NALCO upto the delivery of aluminium conductors, the transaction was established and accepted by the Settlement Commission. This finding was given by Settlement Commission after considering the investigation and all the evidences which were also relied upon in the appellant s present case. Therefore, once all those investigation and evidence have been appreciated and Settlement Commission has come to the conclusion as reproduced above, there is no scope for the Adjudicating Authority to rely upon the same evidences for taking contrary view to the findings given by the Settlement Commission and to confirm the demand of Cenvat credit. Therefore there is no material evidence with the department to establish their charge of clandestine removal of ingots on which the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llants avail Cenvat credit on the inputs, capital goods and input services used in the relation to the manufacture of finished goods. 2.2 M/s. Hiren Aluminium Limited (for short Hiren Aluminium ) is another Company which was having a manufacturing unit in Rakholi village in Silvassa where they were engaged in the manufacture of aluminium conductors. Subsequent to the period in dispute in the present appeal, the factory situated at Rakholi of M/s Hiren Aluminium was purchased by the appellants. However, for the purpose of reference in the present appealHiren Aluminium, Rakholi is referred to as Hiren Aluminium or HirenAluminium, Unit II. 2.3 During the period in dispute, M/s. Hiren Aluminium Unit-1, had a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with M/s. Nalco to purchase aluminium ingots. The appellants during the relevant period did not have any MoU with NALCO to purchase aluminium ingots. The appellants therefore purchased aluminium ingots from NALCO on account of M/s. Hiren Aluminium, Unit-1. The invoice issued by NALCO show the name of the buyer as M/s. Hiren Aluminium, Unit-I and the consignee name as the appellants and the address of the consignee mentioned in the invoices is of Sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nvat credit. Penalties were also proposed to be imposed on co-noticees. The said show cause notice was adjudicated by the learned Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 31.12.2014 whereby the entire amount of Cenvat credit of Rs. 1,40,78,429/- was confirmed along with interest and equal amount of penalty and redemption fine. Hence the present appeal. 3. Shri Anand Nainawati, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the entire case is based on the investigation carried out and show cause notice dated 30.08.2012 issued to M/s. Hiren Aluminium as evident from the impugned order. He submits that the said show cause notice has been settled by the Settlement Commission, Mumbai wherein on the issue of under valuation in respect of finished goods was admitted by the Company and duty was paid. As regards the issue of denial of credit in respect of inputs received from the appellant is concerned, the Settlement Commission vide its order dated 29.08.2013 dropped the demand on the ground that there is no dispute that duty was paid by M/s. JSK Sayli Unit from where Hiren Aluminium has received the ingots therefore, on the basis of a Settlement Commission order, the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce dated 06.03.2013 has been issued to the appellant. The delay of five years in issuing show cause notice clearly shows that there was difference of opinion in the department with regards to the evidences collected by the department. Therefore, the entire information was known to the department in 2008 itself. Since then no show cause notice has been issued to the appellant for denial of credit on ingots. He submits that department sought to appreciate events occurred in October 2008 with a lapse of almost five years, the appellants are not able to find out what was the position way back in 2008-09 therefore, in view of these facts the entire demand is time-barred. 3.3 As regards the confiscation of goods and consequent redemption fine, he submits that goods are not available for confiscation therefore, in view of the Larger Bench decision in the case of Shiv Kripa Ispat Pvt. Limited vs. CCE Cus. Nasik 2009 (235) ELT 623 and CC, Mumbai vs. Rishi Ship Breakers 2009-TIOL-388-CESTAT-MUM-LB, redemption fine cannot be imposed. 4. Shri Tara Prakash, learned Deputy Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 5. We have carefully con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ingots were procured from a third party, M/s NALCO, on payment of CE duty and the final product, Aluminium conductors were cleared on payment of duty. From the above clear findings of the Settlement Commission, the fact was established that the aluminium ingots were procured by the appellant from NALCO on payment of Central Excise duty. The said ingots were removed by the appellant to Hiren Aluminium (now known as JSK Industries Pvt. Limited, Unit-2) and the Hiren Aluminium after converting the ingots into wire rods returned to the appellant and in turn, the appellant have converted the same into standard wire and the standard wire was sold to Hiren Aluminium, Unit-2 for manufacture of Aluminium Conductors and such Aluminium Conductors were cleared on payment of duty. Therefore, the entire chain, right from procurement of aluminium ingots from NALCO upto the delivery of aluminium conductors, the transaction was established and accepted by the Settlement Commission. This finding was given by Settlement Commission after considering the investigation and all the evidences which were also relied upon in the appellant s present case. Therefore, once all those investigation and evidence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
