Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S.Ggl Steel & Strips Pvt.Ltd vs Cce, Delhi-Iv on 30 December, 2016
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
SCO 147-148, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH-160017
SINGLE MEMBER BENCH
Court-I
Appeal No.E/60322-60323/2016
[Arising out of the OIA No.166-167/CE/Appl-II/Delhi/2016 dt.29.4.2016 passed by the CCE(Appeals), Gurgaon)
Date of Hearing/Decision: 30.12.2016
M/s.GGL Steel & Strips Pvt.Ltd. Appellant
Shri Sahil Sharma, Director
Vs.
CCE, Delhi-IV Respondent
Present for the Appellant: Shri N.K.Sharma, Advocate Present for the Respondent: Shri R.k.Sharma, AR Coram: Honble Mr.Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) FINAL ORDER NO. 61837-61838 / 2016 PER: ASHOK JINDAL The appellants are in appeal against the impugned order confirming the demand of duty alongwith interest and imposing penalty on both the appellants.
2. The facts of the case are that the first appellant is the assessee and the second appellant is the Director of the first appellant who are engaged in trading of the excisable goods. On specific intelligence, the premises of the appellant were searched and during the course of search four hand written diaries recovered from the residential premises of Shri Pawan Goyal, a commission agent who admitted that he was involved in arranging goods less/fake Cenvatable invoices on commission basis for various dealers/manufacturers and the appellant is one such dealer to whom he had arranged goods less/fake Cenvatable invoices from the appellant and some other parties. The director of the appellant has confronted and admitted inter alia stated in his statement that they have issued fake invoices without physical movement of excisable goods specified on the said invoices and the cheques/RTGS transactions between M/s.Jadia Pipes (India) Ltd. and the appellant No.1 are mentioned in the diaries of Shri Pawan Goyal. On the basis of these, a case has been booked against the appellant for denying the credit consequently to demand of duty alongwith interest and to impose penalties on both the appellants. The said order was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Aggrieved from the said order, the appellant is before me.
3. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the goods were dispatched to M/s.TFEPL whose registration number has been mentioned in the invoices but no investigation was done with the transporter/driver whether the goods had been sent or not. He further submits that the authorities below have not followed the principles of natural justice. Therefore, he prayed that the impugned order be is to be set aside.
4. On the other hand, learned AR drew my attention to the statement of Shri Sahil Sharma, who inter alia in his statement admitted that they have issued the fake invoices without movement of the excisable goods and the entries were made in the diaries of Shri Pawan Goyal are correct.
5. Heard both sides and considered the submissions.
6. I find that during the course of investigation, the statement of Shri Sahil, the appellant No.2 has been recorded and categorically admitted that they have issued fake invoices without movement of the excisable goods and received payment through cheque through M/s.Jadia Pipes (India) Ltd. and others and all these entries mentioned in the diaries recovered from Shri Pawan Goyal during the course of investigation. This statement has never been retracted and has not been controverted by any cogent evidence. In that circumstance, I hold that the Revenue has been able to prove that the appellants were engaged in the activity of issuance of fake invoices without movement of the goods. Therefore, the appellant do not deserve any immunity from this Tribunal. In the circumstances, as the appellants are involved in the matter by way of issuance of fake invoices, therefore, the provisions of Rule 26 (2) of Central Excise Rules ,2002 are attracted to the facts of this case.
7. In that circumstance, I hold that the penalty on both the appellants has rightly been imposed by the lower authorities. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order, the same is upheld and the appeals filed by the appellants are dismissed.
( pronounced in the court) (ASHOK JINDAL) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) mk 1 E/60322-60323/16 M/s.GGL Steel & Strips Pvt.Ltd.
& Sh.Sahil Sharma, Director vs.CCE, Delhi-IV