Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Chandigarh vs M/S.D.K. Group Of Industries on 24 July, 2013
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI. Date of Hearing/Decision:24.07.2013 Excise Appeals Nos.E/3552, 3553, 3554 and 3555 of 2005 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.297-300/CE/CHD/05 dated 23.08.2005 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh.) CCE, Chandigarh .Appellant Vs. M/s.B.D. Gupta & Sons M/s.D.K. Group of Industries ..Respondent
Appearance:Rep.by Shri R.K. Mathur, DR for the appellant.
Rep. by None for the respondent.
CORAM : Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member Honble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Technical Member Final Orders Nos.57316-57319/2013 Dated: 24/07/2013 Per D.N. Panda:
The respondents were user of invoices issued by M/s. Adhunik Steels Ltd. to claim cenvat credit without receiving goods from that concern which was consignment agent of TISCO at Mandi Gobindgarh and dealing with the goods of TISCO. 56 invoices were issued to the respondents by that concern showing delivery of goods using vehicles not capable of transporting the goods covered by the impugned invoices. On enquiry those carriers were found to be scooter, mopede, auto, cars, tankers, etc. as per records of State Transport Authority. Further some vehicles mentioned in the invoices were neither in existence nor registered with the transporting authority.
2. The fact of dealing of TISCOs goods by Adhunik Steel as consignment agent remained undisputed as per statement of Shri Sushant Banerjee, Authorized Signatory of that concern. He stated that Adhunik Steel was procuring materials from TISCO, Jamshedpur and brought such goods to Mandi Gobindgarh depot of the TISCO since it was owner of the premises as consignment agent and accountable to TISCO. Such fact was also corroborated from the statement dated 21.3.2002 of Nirmal Kumar Agarwal, Director of Adhunik Steel who stated that Adhunik Steel was custodian of TISCO materials in Mandi Gobindgarh to make sale thereof. Even TISCO officials confirmed such position.
3. Inquiry revealed that the Respondents had merely issued cenvatable invoices without goods being delivered by them since delivery was proved to be false without movements of goods to the destination in absence of transportation thereof as is established from enquiry made with Transport Authority. Record of the Authority revealed that registration numbers stated in invoices were false and many of the vehicles were not capable of carrying the goods covered by the invoices.
4. Respondent are not present today.
5. Assistance of Revenue was taken to dispose these appeals of Revenue.
6. Finding of the ld. Adjudicating Authority makes clear that appropriate investigation was done by investigation and falsity of transportation proved as is revealed from para-10 of the adjudication order in the Appeal record No.E/3552/2005. It is proved that Adhunik Steel as a consignment agent issued invoices without delivery of goods to Respondents and made breach of law as was found in adjudication. Ld. Authority found false claim of cenvat credit made by respondents to avail the same illegally in respect of the goods neither transported to their end nor received by them. They enjoyed the benefit at the cost of Revenue and caused prejudice to its interest.
7. When the case was established to be a false claim of cenvat credit in adjudication, ld. Appellate Authority had misplaced sympathy on respondents on the ground that because fictitious number of vehicles were used that fails to prove that goods were not delivered in the premises of the Respondent. He brushed aside the inquiry report of investigation depicting result of enquiry from the Transport Authority. He simply came to a conclusion that there was delivery of goods without any evidence in support of his decision.
8. Issue similar to above was before Honble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of Ranjeev Alloys Ltd. reported in 2009 (247) ELT 27 (P&H). Honble High Court dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground of incapability of the carriers for transportation of the goods established from records of Transport Authority fails to prove receipt of goods by claimant of cenvat credit.
9. In the present case it was established that there was neither movement of the goods nor there was real transaction of delivery occurred to the respondents in view of result of enquiry from Transport Authority. Transactions made through 56 invoices were false. Following the ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgment and because of specific factual finding in adjudication, all the four appeals of Revenue are allowed restoring adjudication and setting aside the impugned order.
( D.N. Panda ) Judicial Member ( Rakesh Kumar ) Technical Member Ckp.
1