M\/s. Ultimate Alloys Pvt. Ltd. and M\/s. Alagappa & Co. Versus Commissioner of GST and Central Excise Coimbatore
Central Excise
2018 (8) TMI 547 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 2-8-2018
E\/494 & 474\/2012 – Final Order Nos. 42207-42208\/2018
Central Excise
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) and Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical)
\nShri M.A. Mudimannan Advocate for 1st Appellant None for 2nd Appellant
\nShri S. Govindarajan, AC (AR) for the Respondent
\nORDER
\nPer Bench
\nThe facts of the case are that M\/s. Ultimate Alloys Pvt. Ltd. (herein after referred to as UAL) in Appeal No.E\/494\/2012 were manufacturers of alloy steel castings. They were purchasing inputs like steel scrap, stainless steel melting scrap and MS scraps from central excise registered dealers availing CENVAT thereof and using them in manufacture of finished products. It appeared to the department that UAL were availing irregular CENVAT credit on non-duty paid inputs rece<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n s under Rule 25 of CENVAT Credit Rules, read with Section 11AC of the Act. In adjudication, the original authority confirmed the proposals and also imposed penalties of Rs. 10,65,577\/- on UAL, Rs. 40,000\/- on Alagappa (under Rule 25), Rs. 40,000\/- on M\/s. Amman Steel and Rs. 17,000\/- on M\/s. Vijay Kamal Traders. In appeal, Commissioner (Appeals), upheld the order of the adjudicating authority and rejected the appeals filed before him. M\/s. UAL (Appeal No. E\/494\/2012) and Alagappa (Appeal No. E\/474\/2014) have preferred appeals before this Tribunal. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n alers. He also argues that the commercial invoice which were accompanying the goods were different from the description and value contained in the original invoice of the manufacturers. The fact that they have paid the differential duty itself goes to prove the contravention of law. The ld. AR relies on the following case laws:- = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n s of four supplier \/ dealers and the statement of lab incharge of UAL. However, the statement of Shri T.K. Sundaram of Alagappa, one of such dealer, has been retracted during cross-examination. None of the other dealers \/ suppliers appeared for the cross-examination. The statement of V. Kumaresan, lab in charge, as seen from para 5 of the show cause notice concerns the procedure followed by him while giving the lab test report. He has also stated that “he is not aware of the description mentioned in the invoices \/ deliver challans accompanying the goods and that in the test report generated, the chemical composition of the raw materials received and also the shape of the sample tested would only be given”. This being so, there is nothing in the statement of P. Kumaresan to support any allegation that the samples tested by him were found to be different from that invoiced. It is also not the case that the department had intercepted some of the raw materials supplied, taken samples there<\/p>\n = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s. Ultimate Alloys Pvt. Ltd. and M\/s. Alagappa & Co. Versus Commissioner of GST and Central Excise CoimbatoreCentral Excise2018 (8) TMI 547 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMICESTAT CHENNAI – ATDated:- 2-8-2018E\/494 & 474\/2012 – Final Order Nos. 42207-42208\/2018Central ExciseMs. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) and Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri M.A. Mudimannan Advocate … Continue reading “M\/s. Ultimate Alloys Pvt. Ltd. and M\/s. Alagappa & Co. Versus Commissioner of GST and Central Excise Coimbatore”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-13167","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13167","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=13167"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13167\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=13167"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=13167"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=13167"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n2. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, on behalf of Alagappan, none appeared. On behalf of UAL, Shri M.A. Mudimannan appeared and argued the matter. He made oral and written submissions, which can be broadly summarized as under:-
\n2.1 The entire case has been built on statements recorded from Alagappa and other dealers. However, even in the statement given by Shri T.K. Sundaram, authorized signatory of Alagappa, it had been pointed o<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\na. Mukand Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur – 2007(7) STR 159 (Tri. Mum.)
\nb. Steel India Company Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune – 2014 (310) ELT 184 (Tri. Mum.)
\n4. Heard both sides.
\n5. The allegation in the show cause notice, as seen from para 20 thereof, is that UAL failed to take reasonable steps to ensure that inputs in respect of which they had taken CENVAT credit were the goods on which appropriate duty of excise as indicated in the documents accompanying the goods have been paid”. It is also alleged that UAL actually received non-duty paid MS scrap in the guise of MS ingots, MS ingots (rejected), MS angles, centre discs etc. b<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n