Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Adhunik Ferro Alloys Ltd vs Cce & S.T.-Chandigarh-I on 1 October, 2015
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELALTE TRIBUNAL
R.K. PURAM, WEST BLOCK NO. 2, NEW DELHI-110066
Singh Member Bench
Date of hearing: 15.09.2015
Pronounced on: 01.10.2015
Appeal No. E/54438, 54550, 54089, 54090/2014-EX[SM]
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.CHD-EXCUS-OOO-APP-152-158-14-15 dated 30/4/2014 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Chandigarh]
For Approval and Signature:
Honble Smt. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial)
1.
Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for Publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2.
Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3.
Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order?
4.
Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities?
M/s. Modern Steels Ltd.,
Shri V.K. Sahi, General Manager
M/s. Tata Steel Ltd.,
M/s. Adhunik Ferro Alloys Ltd. Appellants
Vs.
CCE & S.T.-Chandigarh-I Respondents
Appearance: Shri Vikrant Kackria and Shri Kamaljeet Singh, Advocates for the appellant.
Shri M.R. Sharma, DR for the respondent.
Coram: Honble Smt. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) Final Order No. 53053-53056/2015 Per: Sulekha Beevi C.S. The appellant M/s. Modern Steels Ltd. availed CENVAT Credit of Rs. 2,08,136/- on invoices issued by M/s. Adhunik Ferro Alloys who is a registered dealer and procured material from Tata Iron and Steel Co. (TISCO-Now Tata Steels Ltd.) from their depot. It was observed by the department that TISCO and M/s. Adhunik Ferro Alloys Ltd, fraudulently issued invoices and connived with manufacturers of Iron and Steel to facilitate fraudulent availment of Modvat Credit. The investigation showed that vehicles in which goods had been shown to be transported to manufacturers were, in fact, mopeds, scooters, Maruti vans, motorcycles, tractors, sprinklers etc, which indicated that the inputs were not transported at all and that these were only paper transactions. Accordingly, show cause notice was issued proposing for recovery of Modvat Credit along with interest and also imposing penalty. After adjudication order was passed confirming the demand. Aggrieved by the order, the appellants filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority who upheld the same. The appellants then field appeal before the Tribunal. The CESTAT vide Final Order No. 14.7.2009 remanded the case for fresh adjudication. The Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 30.11.2012 confirmed the demand after denovo adjudication. The appellants filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and vide impugned order the Commissioner (Appeals) modified the order to the extent of reducing the penalty to Rs. 1,00,000 imposed upon each appellant under Rule 209A of Central Excise Rules. The appellants are thus before the Tribunal aggrieved by the disallowance of Modvat Credit of Rs. 2,08,136/- and recovery of the same along with interest and the imposition of penalty.
2. The main grievance put forward by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellant is that even in denovo adjudication, the primary adjudicating authority failed to consider the documents, produced by the appellant. It is the case of appellant, that they have discharged the onus of proof that the material had actually been received by them in their factory. It is urged that the depot of TISCO will deliver material only to those buyers who obtain delivery order from BSO of Tata at Ludhiana. This delivery order is issued only if payment is made in advance. That after issue of delivery order neither the depot can hold back the delivery nor the buyer can back out. That therefore, to allege that goods have not been delivered by basing on extraneous evidence is highly erroneous.
3. On perusal of the order-in-original it is seen that the adjudicating authority has not considered the documents produced by the appellant sufficiently. It is the case of appellants that they had produced weighment slips and also evidence for payment of freight. It is seen that the authorities below have not considered these documents but have been carried away by the statements of transporters. When the assessee produces documents to controvert the allegation leveled, the adjudicating authority has to examine and consider the same. The reason why these documents are not reliable or accepted in evidence has to be stated explicitly. Taking into consideration the arguments advanced by the appellant, I am of the opinion that it is necessary to adjudicate the matter afresh on the light of the documents furnished by the appellants.
4. In view thereof, the appeals are remanded to the adjudicating authority for denovo adjudication to examine and consider the documents produced on the side of appellants. The adjudicating authority shall give an opportunity for personal hearing also.
5. In the result, the appeals are allowed by way of remand.
(Pronounced in the open court on 01.10.2015) (Sulekha Beevi C.S.) Member (Judicial) Ritu 2