Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Chandigarh vs Ashoka Steel Corporation on 24 April, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi 110 066.
Date of Hearing : 24.4.2014
Appeal No. E/2947-2951/2006-EX(SM)
[Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. 541-545/CE/CHD/06 dated 9.6.2006 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Chandigarh)
For Approval & signature :
Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, 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?
CCE, Chandigarh Appellant
Vs.
Ashoka Steel Corporation Respondent
Punjab Steel Forging & Agro Industries Ranjeev Alloys Ltd.
Jyoti Concast Ltd.
Thour Steel Industries
Appearance
Shri B.B. Sharma, D.R. - for the appellant
Shri Bipin Garg, Advocate - for the respondent
CORAM:Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
Final Order No.51805-51809/2014
Per Archana Wadhwa :
Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue has filed the present appeals, which are being disposed of by a common order as they arise out of the same impugned orders.
2. After hearing both the sides, I find that M/s Ashoka Steel Corporation and M/s Thour Steel Industries are the registered dealers, who had issued cenvatable invoices, on the basis of which the three manufacturing units i.e. Punjab Steel Forging & Agro Industry, Ranjeev Alloys Ltd. and Jyoti Concast Ltd. have availed the Cenvat credit.
3. The Revenues allegation was that the said two dealers have issued only cenvatable invoices without the corresponding supply of the goods to the manufacturing units. The said allegations were based upon the recovery of certain documents by the Sales Tax authorities from the residence of Shri Krishan Kumar, proprietor of Thour Steel Industries. Such rough papers so recovered was scrutinised and it was believed that the same belonged to the sales of the material to the other parties, other than the manufacturing unit in question. Similarly rough papers recovered from the other dealers premises were also scrutinised and identical belief was entertained.
4. On the above basis, proceedings were initiated against the respondent culminating into an order passed by original adjudicating authority. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the same. Hence the present appeals.
5. Shri Ravi Kant, partner of M/s Ashoka Steel Corporation, in his statement had clearly deposed that he was taking tuitions of various persons and it was only the rough paper to guide the students and it does not represent any dealings with any person. He had also given the names of the students but no enquires were made from them. Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon the said fact of failure on the part of the department and has observed that the Revenue has failed to create any corroborative evidence on the above lines by making investigations from such students, whose names were given by the deponent to ascertain the truth and as such the statement has to be accepted as the correct reflection of facts.
As regards the statement of Shri Krishan Kumar it stand observed by the appellate authority that though in his initial statement he has said that the material in question was sold to the party sale parties but when the said sale parties were conducted, they refused to having received any material from M/s Thour Steel. Further the Revenue has also not taken any action against the said sale parties, in which case the statement of Shri Kewal Krishan cannot be relied upon.
6. I have also further taken into consideration that all manufacturing units in their statement have accepted to have received the material in question and payments for the same had been made by crossed cheques. There is virtually no evidence of any flow back of money from the dealers to the manufacturers, in which case I agree with the appellate authority that the Revenues allegation cannot be upheld.
7. The most important factor is that the period involved in the present appeal is after 1.4.2000 to July 2000. The manufacturing units were also receiving the raw material from the said dealer being prior to 1.4.2000, when Section 3A was in operation and no Cenvat credit was availed by the manufacturing units in respect of the material so received by them from the said dealers. As such, the appellate authority has correctly observed that the allegation of the Revenue after 1.4.2000, that they only received cenvatable invoices without corresponding receipt of the inputs is only assumptive.
8. I also agree with the Commissioner (Appeals) reasoning that the Revenue has not shown any alternate source of procurement of raw material. Admittedly the manufacturing units have consumed the raw material and have shown the production of their final product, which was cleared on payment of duty. If, according to the Revenue, they have not received the raw material from the said two registered dealers, there is no answer to the question as to from where manufacturing unit have procured the raw material.
9. On above reasons, I find no infirmity in the views of Commissioner (Appeals) and appeals filed by the Revenue are rejected.
(Dictated & pronounced in open Court) (Archana Wadhwa) Member (Judicial) RM 5