Excise Appeal Nos. 52313, 52314, 52315 and 52316/2019

Decided On: 27.12.2021

Appellants: Trishul Metal Industries Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Respondent: Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax, Surya Nagar

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Rachna Gupta


Rachna Gupta, Member (J)

1. The present appeal has been filed to assail the order of Commissioner (Appeals) bearing No. 174-179/2019 dated 06.06.2019. The relevant facts of adjudication, in brief, are as follows:

That the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of copper ingots. The Department initially received the information through Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Delhi Zone unit (DGCEI). Show cause notice dated 2.3.2016 issued to M/s. Chandra Proteco Ltd., Silvassa on the basis of fraudulent availment of CENVAT Credit on the strength of Cenvatable invoices raised by M/s. Sypher Impex Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Bhiwadi, Alwar, against which the no goods as that of copper ingots were received by them physically in their factory premises. On the basis of the said show cause notice, the information was called from the Additional Commissioner (AE) Central Excise Commissionerate Alwar and pursuant to the reply response to that information that Show Cause Notice dated 25.5.2017 was issued to the M/s. Sypher Impex Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Prior to issuing the said Show Cause Notice, there was already a search in the premises of M/s. Sypher Impex Alloys Pvt. Ltd. on 09.04.2013 with Panchnama of the even date. During investigation it was observed that M/s. Sypher Impex Alloys Pvt. Ltd. has issued the invoice bearing No. 67, 69 and 90 dated 8.6.2012, 10.6.2012 and 2.7.2012 respectively of the appellant herein involving CENVAT Credit amounting to Rs. 5,82,384/- however, without supply of any material. Resultantly, a show cause notice bearing Number 1145 dated 28.6.2017 was served upon the appellant as well proposing the recovery of said amount of CENVAT Credit along with the interest of the proportionate penalties upon the appellants company as well its Managing Director and the authorised signatory. The Director of the M/s. Sypher Impex Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Shri Yogesh Singh has also been made the co-noticee. The said proposal was initially confirmed vide Order-in-Original No. 32/2018 dated 16.7.2018. The appeals thereof have been rejected vide the order under challenge. Being aggrieved the appellant is before this Tribunal.

2. I have heard Shri Bipin Garg and Ms. Kainaat, learned Counsels for the appellant and Shri Ravi Kapoor, learned Departmental Representative for the Department.

3. Learned Counsel for the appellant has mentioned that appellants herein have wrongly been involved in the present case. It is submitted that CENVAT Credit of inputs received in the factory of the appellant was taken on the basis of invoices prescribed under Rule 11 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 issued by M/s. Sypher Impex Alloys Pvt. Ltd. It is mentioned that once they have received the inputs under the cover of valid and prescribed invoices, same was more than sufficient to believe that the said M/s. Sypher Impex Alloys Pvt. Ltd. has manufactured such inputs more so, for the reason that the said supplier was duly registered under Central Excise for manufacturing of impugned goods. The findings that the appellants have not received inputs in their factory and have not used such inputs in or in relation to manufacture of their final products are alleged to be baseless. Duty paid invoices were duly been shown to the Investigating officer. It was only duly shown that such invoices have appropriately been accounted for in appellants statutory CENVAT Credit account registers. It is impressed upon that there is no evidence as was collected from the appellants premises to prove the above said allegations against the appellants. There is no denial to the fact that the impugned invoices are consigned to appellants factory. The findings of the adjudicating authority below have mentioned based upon the statements recorded by the third parties upon the documents recovered from the third party premises. Reliance has wrongly been placed to fasten the liability upon the appellants. Learned Counsel has emphasised upon the several statements recorded at the time of investigation mentioning that none of them have ........