9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 415X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igh Court, the appellant is entitled for cenvat credit disputed in the proceedings.
The impugned order set aside - appeal allowed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the jurisdictional Central Excise office and jurisdictional officer is required to verify the correctness of the transaction of the dealer and it is not possible that dealer does not receive the goods and only issues invoices. Further they have submitted that the invoices cannot be considered as fake. They have further submitted that extended period of limitation invoked in the show cause notice cannot be invoked in the present case since the dealer also has filed the required returns and the manufacturer also has filed the required returns showing the cenvat credit availed by them. They have further submitted that all the payments made to dealers were made through banking channels. They have submitted that the goods were received and central excise duty paid on the goods received was availed as cenvat credit on the basis of invoices issued 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M/s. Shreya Enterprises has not received ingots and, therefore, it was believed by Revenue that ingots were not received by the appellant. On the contrary, through the said final order dated 27.09.2018, it is established that M/s. Anant Steel Pvt. Ltd. had cleared ingots to M/s. Shreya Enterprises and M/s. Shreya Enterprises cleared the goods to M/s. Rajuri Steel Pvt. Ltd. He submitted copy of the final order referred to above. c) He has brought attention to page 92 and 93 of appeal paper book which carries the certificates issued by officers of Revenue having audited the records of M/s. Rajuri Steel Pvt. Ltd. for the period from August 2009 to July 2010 and August 2010 to August 2011 which covers the entire period of demand and submitted that the records of the appellant were audited by Revenue and, therefore, the invocation of extended 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tutory records as sale of MS Ingots to M/s Shreyash Enterprises, Jalna being proprietorship firm of Shri Vinayak Kangaonkar - appellant in Appeal No. E/53025/2016, under 396 central excise invoices during the period 2010-11 and 2011-12 [December 2011] and, thus, evaded central excise duty of Rs. 35,28,567/-. It was further stated in the SCN that this was done by ASPL in connivance with M/s Rajuri Steels Pvt. Ltd., Jalna - appellant in Appeal No. E/53056/2016, under a well hatched strategy to pass on the fraudulent cenvat credit to M/s Rajuri Steel Pvt. Ltd. through a Sham firm in the name and style of M/s Shreyash Enterprises." The finding on the said allegations are in para 22 of the said order which are as follows:- "22. This brings us to the last issue relating to demand of duty of Rs.35,28,567/- on TMT bars alleged to be manufactured 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 th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
