MULTIMETALS LTD. Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE DIVISION AND ORS.
LAWS(RAJ)-2016-2-59
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided on February 10,2016

MULTIMETALS LTD. Appellant
VERSUS
Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Division And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Instant appeal u/Sec. 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is directed against order of the Custom, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi Dt. 23/03/2015 and is relevant for the period from 04/11/2006 to 29/11/2006.
(2.) Brief facts noticed are that the appellant -assessee is a manufacturer of Copper Tube, Copper Rods, Copper Alloy Wire etc. falling under Chapter sub heading No. 74111000, 74072910 & 74082290 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The adjudicating authority was of the view that the assessee had wrongly availed Cenvat Credit amounting to Rs. 7,32,747/ - in contravention of Rule 3(4) of the Central Credit Rules, 2004. It was the claim of the Revenue that the assessee had purchased material from one M/s. V.K. Enterprises of Bhiwadi, a registered dealer who claimed to have received material from M/s. Navneet Yarn Pvt. Ltd., Bhiwadi who issued two bills in favour of the assessee (M/s. Multimetals Limited) for dispatch of Copper Wire. Later on, it transpired that M/s. Navneet Yarn Pvt. Ltd. from whom M/s. V.K. Enterprises had purchased the goods was not at all manufacturing unit of Copper Wire but was manufacturing Polyster Yarn and the said company did not have any facility to manufacture Copper Wire in their factory and it was noticed by the Assessing Officer (for short, 'AO') that from the investigation it was revealed that claim for having procured raw material - copper rod by M/s. Navneet Yarn Pvt. Ltd. was found to be fake. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued by the respondents to the assessee which was responded to and it was contended that in so far as the assessee is concerned, it had purchased goods from M/s. V.K. Enterprises, which has been found to be a registered dealer and the two invoices have not been found to be fake and if the purchase by M/s. V.K. Enterprise from M/s. Navneet Yarn Pvt. Ltd. has been found to be false or fake, the assessee cannot be faulted with because it has purchased goods by valid invoices and goods have been transported & dispatched by M/s. V.K. Enterprises to the unit of the assessee at Kota through proper challan supported by invoices and M/s. V.K. Enterprises is not only registered as a dealer of the Central Excise Division but also registered under the Income Tax Act, Sales Tax Act etc. Thus, it was contended that merely because M/s. Navneet Yarn Pvt. Ltd. has been treated to be bogus, the claim of the assessee could not be rejected. However, the AO was not satisfied and passed order rejecting the contention of the appellant.
(3.) The appeal filed by the assessee before the Commissioner, also failed and the further appeal filed by the assessee before the Tribunal too came to be dismissed by the Tribunal vide order impugned herein.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.