9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 139X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) ? (ii) Whether the Tribunal is correct in allowing the appeal of the respondent with consequential relief where so called supplier of crude Menthol oil were found non-existence/fake during investigation? (iii) Whether the Tribunal is correct in allowing the appeal of the respondent with consequential relief, by holding the demand on account of assumption and presumption is not sustainable, without going into the facts of the case, emerged during investigation, searches of premises of concerned and follow up investigation of the case ? (iv) Whether the Tribunal is correct in allowing the relief when the party had indulged into fraud, wilfully suppressed/mis-declared the material facts and also resorted to issue invoice without manufacturing and passing the CENVAT Credit to downstream. (v) Whether the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is justified in accordance with the provisions of notification No. 56/2002-CE dated 14.11.2002 ? 3. Before we advert to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing on both sides and proceed to determine the substantial questions of law framed by this Court, we deem it appropriate to allude to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to M/s Sachin and Nitin Enterprises, Lucknow were not complied with. The officers of the Commissinerate, Central Excise Meerut-II searched various branches of M/s Sachin and Nitin Enterprises located at different places of District Barabanki in U.P. Some of the premises were found closed and locked. The Head office of M/s Sachin and Nitin Enterprises, situate at Indira Nagar, Lucknow too was searched on 26.08.2009 in which 45 books containing 100 vouchers each, showing different payments made to the farmers for the purchase of crude menthe oil, for the year 2007-08, were recovered. The farmers, who were named in the vouchers, and had allegedly supplied the crude mentha oil to M/s Sachin and Nitin Enterprises, were verified through jurisdictional officers of the Central Excise. The farmers randomly selected from the purchase vouchers were found non-existent. It is on the basis of this investigation conducted by the Commissionerate, the jurisdictional Commissioner concluded that the J&K based units were not purchasing raw materials, so there was no question of manufacture of finished goods as had been shown by the respondent to avail the area-based exemptions. The jurisdictional Au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent, production, and clearance. Mr. Malhotra would argue that, in the absence of any independent investigation conducted by the jurisdictional Central Excise Authorities into the functioning of the respondent, the jurisdictional Authority could not have raised the demand for refund of excise duty paid by the respondent on the clearance of goods from its unit. He submits that, in response to the show cause notice, the respondent had submitted its reply clarifying its position, as is reproduced in paragraphs No. 5, 6 and 7 of the impugned order passed by the CESTAT. However, the same was neither referred to by the Adjudicating Authority, nor controverted by the Revenue department. He, therefore, submits that the CESTAT correctly appreciated the issue and came to the conclusion that there was no evidence on record proving that the respondent was not the manufacturer and had not produced the excisable goods during the relevant period. Consequently, the CESTAT held that there was no illegality or fraud committed by the respondent in availing the refund of excise duty paid by it on the removal of goods manufactured in its unit. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and peruse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inter alia, on the condition that the unit will operate on DG sets; Annual financial statements; audited financial statements for the relevant period and periodic returns submitted to Inspector of Factories. The CESTAT has rightly taken note of the fact that most of the consignments of the raw material procured by the respondent were entered at the toll barrier. The officers of the District Industries Centre, who had assessed and fixed the capacity of the respondent, had regularly verified the purchase consignments. The Adjudicating Authority has also ignored the fact that the respondent had installed two DG sets of 125 KVA to supplement the power. The case was clearly set up by the respondent before the Adjudicating Authority, but the same was not enquired into or investigated and the Adjudicating Authority rather placed sole reliance upon the investigation conducted by the Commissionerate. The CESTAT has rightly not approved the manner in which the proceedings were conducted by the Adjudicating Authority. 13. We, at the cost of repetition, would say that with a view to claim payment of refund availed by the respondent under Notification dated 14.11.2002 (supra), it is necessary ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
