9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 415X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing under tariff item No. 72149990 of Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Appellant is manufacturing MS TMT bars by using MS billets or MS ingots as inputs. Appellant is also availing the benefit of cenvat credit. Revenue conducted investigation against one manufacturer by name M/s. Anant Steel Pvt. Ltd., Pithampur. M/s. Anant Steel Pvt. Ltd. manufactured MS ingots. During the investigation conducted by Revenue against M/s. Ananta Steel Pvt. Ltd., it was found that there was alleged clandestine clearance of MS ingots manufactured by them. Therefore, proceedings were initiated against M/s. Anant Steel Pvt. Ltd. and further investigations were carried out. It was revealed that M/s. Anant Steel Pvt. Ltd. was selling MS ingots to one M/s. Shreyas Enterprises, Jalna which is a registered dealer having registration No. APBPK7901CXD002. Therefore, further investigations were carried out at M/s. Shreyas Enterprises, Jalna. During the said investigations, it was revealed that M/s. Shreyas Enterprises, Jalna was supplying MS ingots to the appellant. Appellant was getting MS ingots from M/s. Shreyas Enterprises, the first stage dealer and was availing cenvat credit of central excise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sued by first stage dealer who is registered with Central Excise and, therefore, the cenvat credit availed was in accordance with law. The above stated show cause notice was adjudicated through the impugned order-in-original. The original authority did not appreciate the contentions raised and confirmed the demand and imposed equal penalty on the appellant. Further, the original authority has imposed penalty of Rs.10,00,000/- each on the remaining appellants under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Aggrieved by the said order, appellants are before this Tribunal. 3. On 16.10.2024 we had heard the learned counsel for the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant made the following submissions:- a) In respect of M/s. Anant Steel, the proceedings reached this Tribunal. This Tribunal vide final order No. 53042- 53048/2018 dated 27.09.2018 held in para 22 that there was evidence available on record that M/s. Shreyas Enterprises had received the ingots cleared by M/s. Anant Steel and the same were further sold to M/s. Rajuri Steel Ltd. and the same were received by M/s. Rajuri Steel Ltd. and all such entries were duly reflected in the books o account and consideration was paid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... period of limitation is not in accordance with law and that the allegation that the inputs were not received but only invoices were received is also not established as to such objection was raised by Audit. d) On the basis of the above submissions, he has submitted that the impugned order-in-original is not sustainable. 4. Heard the learned AR. Learned AR has submitted that there was no movement of goods from M/s. Anant Steel Pvt. Ltd. to M/s. Shreyas Enterprises and only documents were issued and, therefore, cenvat credit is not admissible. 5. On 02.01.2025 matter was heard for clarification from both the sides and the issues on which clarification was required were clarified by both the sides. When Revenue was enquired as to whether the appellant has manufactured final products during the relevant period and whether the appellant had paid central excise duty, Revenue has replied that the appellant has paid duty during the relevant period. On enquiry whether there was any investigation to the effect that when inputs were not received by M/s. Rajuri Steel Pvt. Ltd. and goods were manufactured from where the appellant had procured inputs for manufacture of goods on which duty w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed and cleared by ASPL during the period 09.10.2010 to 08.06.2011 without payment of duty. The Commissioner has held that ASPL had merely issued invoices (without goods) by showing clearance of 6106.4 MTs of MS Ingots but, in actual, had utilized the said quantity of ingots to manufacture and clear TMT bars without payment of duty. We find that the facts and evidence available on record shows that the invoices were issued by ASPL in the name of M/s Shreyash Enterprises, a proprietorship firm, whose proprietor Shri Vinayaka Kangaonkar had admitted in his statement dated 16.10.12 of having received ingots along with the said invoices which he had further sold to M/s Rajuri Steel Pvt. Ltd., whose Manager Shri Dinesh Rathi had also admitted in his statement dated 08.03.2013 of having received the ingots manufactured by ASPL through M/s Shreyash Enterprises. Once the said quantity of ingots were manufactured by ASPL and cleared to M/s Shreyash Enterprises, who in turn had sold the same to M/s Rajuri Steel Pvt. Ltd. and all these entries were duly reflected in their books of accounts and consideration was paid through cheque and there is no evidence regarding receipt of any amount other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
