9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 1275X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oof of receipt of such goods in their premises and their output indicating that the goods were actually received as per accounts. The department has not brought on record any worthwhile evidence to indicate non supply of goods from M/s. Ridhi Sidhi to the present appellants despite appellant s having brought on record various evidence by name of transporters, their receipts, invoice and the receipt of goods as well as payments made to M/s. Ridhi Sidhi. The documentary evidence given by them therefore has not been rebutted by any credible evidence. The stance of the department in upholding the second link in the chain of evidence is therefore purely based on presumptions and assumptions. Therefore, there is no reason to doubt the documentary evidence indicating receipt of finished material from M/s. Ridhi Sidhi. The same has also been left incomplete due to non-recording of statements of proprietor/director/authorised person of M/s. Ridhi Sidhi and also because of refusal of the adjudicating authority below to allow cross examination to afford opportunity to the present appellant who desired the same for their defence. Cumulatively department has failed to establish a case against t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d stage dealer'. The Summary of purchases was as under : S.No. M/s. Ridhi Sidhi purchased from 1st stage dealer Quantity (MT) Manufacturer from whom first stage dealer purchased the scrap % of total purchase 1 Renu Raj Enterprises 5809.4 Tata Steel Ltd. 85.58 500.89 Bhardwaj Steels P. Ltd. 7.38 2. Sidhi Vinayyak Metal Salt Co. P. Ltd. 478.09 Allied India iron Steel P. Ltd. 7.04 Total 6788.38 100 3. From the above, it was claimed that 85.58% of the scrap had originated from M/s Tata Steel. The detailed chart of purchase made from M/s Ridhi Sidhi Enterprises, Jaipur along with invoices - Annexure-A to the Appeal Memo. The appellants vide letter dated 09.07.2021 to the Superintendent (AE), CGST Commissionerate, Jodhpur (Annexure-B to the Appeal) submitted copies of invoices issued by M/s Ridhi Sidhi, along with respective transport documents, weighment slips, goods receipt notes, driving licence of driver of vehicle and ledger account of M/s Ridhi Sidhi Enterprise, Jaipur evidencing claimed payment made to them. Out of the alleged 15 suppliers, only two suppliers namely M/s Renu Raj Enterprises and Mis Sidhi Vinayyak Metal Salt Co. P. Ltd. supplied scrap in question to M/s Ridhi S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied India Iron Steel P. Ltd.:- The scrap supplied by M/s Ridhi Sidhi to the appellant was not purchased by them directly from manufacturer but from the 1st stage dealer namely M/s Renu Raj Enterprises who bought the scrap from the manufacturer. Shri Md. Mehboob Alam, Director of M/s Allied India Iron Steel P Ltd., Girdih in his statement dated 21.12.2020, stated that his firm did not make any supply to M/s Ridhi Sidi, however, he nowhere stated that M/s Allied India Iron Steel P Ltd. has not sold any material to M/s. Renu Raj Enterprises. So far the finding of the adjudicating authority at para 24.1 that goods supplied by M/s Tata Steel was Def. CR Sheets/ Def CR Coil Cutting the appellant had shown receipt of the same as MS Scrap. It was submitted that Def meant defective which could not fetch price of fresh material and sold by Tata as Def. CR Sheets/ Def CR Coil Cutting and the same is raw material for the appellant. 4. In furtherance of their submissions, the appellants placed reliance on the following mentioned cases: (i) Nidhi Auto Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida-I reported as 2020 (33) GSTL 419 (Tri.-All.) (ii) Kisco Castings India Ltd. Vs. Commr. Of C.Ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aw material shown to have been supplied in the Books of Accounts of M/s. Ridhi Sidhi was not actually supplied. It was therefore clear that the raw material as accounted to have been supplied was not available with M/s. Ridhi Sidhi. They could not have in turn supplied to the appellants. He therefore reiterated the findings justifying the action of confirmation of the SCN. 6. In rebuttal, the learned Advocate indicated from the records that their request for cross examination of the suppliers of M/s. Ridhi Sidhi as well as of transporters of M/s. Ridhi Sidhi was negated by the authorities below, though they have relied upon their statements considering the same to be relevant piece of evidence. He further indicated that there was sufficient documentary evidence to indicate that goods purchased by them actually moved from M/s. Ridhi Sidhi to their premises and department has not been able to rebut this piece of documentary evidence provided by them including the financial payments made by them to M/s. Ridhi Sidhi. Further statement of proprietor of M/s. Ridhi Sidhi was never recorded to indicate the real situation about the supplies made by them, which they are emphatic were actuall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
