STI INDUSTRIES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & S.T.
LAWS(CE)-2015-7-52
CUSTOMS EXCISE AND GOLD(CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on July 02,2015

Sti Industries Appellant
VERSUS
Commissioner of Central Excise And S.T. Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

MAHESH C. KADAKIA VS. CCE,NASIK [REFERRED TO]
CCE,CHANDIGARH VS. SHAKTI ROLL COLD STRIPS PVT. LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. VS. KRISHNA WIRE PRODUCTS (P) LTD. [REFERRED TO]
SUPER TRADING COMPANY, FARIDABAD AUTOCOMP SYSTEM PVT. LTD VS. CCE [REFERRED TO]
ARVIND ENTERPRISES AVON STEELS (INDIA) J.L. AUTOPARTS VS. CCE, DELHI-IV [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

P.K.DAS - (1.)THE relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of Electrical Wiring Accessories falling under Chapter 85 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
(2.)They were availing CENVAT credit under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. On 11.01.2007, the Central Excise officers of Preventive Section of Vapi Commissionerate visited the appellant's factory and withdrew records under Panchnama dated 11.01.2007. During investigation, it was found that the appellant availed CENVAT credit amounting to Rs. 11,59,698/ - on the basis of invoices issued by M/s. Annapurna Impex Pvt. Limited, Ludhiana (M/s. Annapurna in short) without receiving the inputs. The Central Excise officers recorded the statements of the employee of the appellants, broker of M/s. Annapurna and Angadias of Ludhiana.
A show cause notice dated 31.03.2008 was issued proposing demand of duty of Rs. 11,59,698/ - alongwith interest and to impose penalty on the ground that the appellant wrongly availed CENVAT credit on the strength of duty paying documents of M/s. Annapurna, without actual receipt of inputs. It has also proposed to appropriate amount deposited by the appellant during the course of investigation. The adjudicating authority denied the CENVAT credit and confirmed the demand of duty alongwith interest and imposed penalty of equal amount. It has also appropriated the amount deposited by the appellant, during investigation. By the impugned order, Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order and rejected the appeal filed by the appellant.

(3.)THE learned Advocate on behalf of the appellant submits that the appellant purchased the materials from M/s. Annapurna and directly sent to the Job Workers. After processing of the raw materials, received from the input suppliers, the Job Workers delivered the processed materials to the appellant alongwith Challans and Bills of labour charges, which were used in the manufacture of final products and cleared of payment of duty. It is submitted that the entire transaction was recorded in the CENVAT records and other statutory records. He submits that the appellant produced all the documents before the adjudicating authority and no dispute was raised. It is further submitted that both the authorities have held that M/s. Annapurna was a non -existing firm. He placed a copy of letter dated 31.7.2012 of Assistant Commissioner (Preventive) of Ludhiana, in reply to their application under Right to Information Act, 2005 that M/s. Annapurna was in existence during the material period and they issued invoices and also paid duty. Learned Advocate filed compilation of the Documents showing correlation of the goods received from M/s. Annapurna to return of semi -processed goods with copy of the invoices Challans, Bills, etc. which were also placed before the Adjudicating authority. He relied upon the following decisions of the Tribunal: -
"(a) Super Trading Company vs. CCE, Delhi [ : 2014 (299) ELT 75 (Tri. Del.)]

(b) Arvind Enterprises vs. CCE, Delhi [ : 2013 (296) ELT 253 (Tri. Del.)]

(c) CCE, Chandigarh vs. Shakti Roll Cold Strips Pvt. Limited [2008 (229) ELT 661 (P&H)]"

;


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