Page 247 - ELT_1_1st April 2020_Vol 372_Part

2020 ] SYNERGY STEELS LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, ALWAR 133

the basis of these invoices, it was argued by Learned Advocate that the charge of
undervaluation of their final product, manufactured by the main appellant is not
sustainable. The allegation of the department is thus devoid of any merit.
4.8 It was also submitted by Learned Advocate that none of the buyers
were visited by the DGCEI officer, so as to conclude that the appellant has
charged higher price than that which was reflected in the invoice.
5. Regarding the availment of Cenvat credit of Rs. 79,87,489/-, by the
main appellant, it was submitted that out of these amount the appellant availed
Cenvat credit of Rs. 50,56,574/- on the strength of invoices of M/s. JBCPL and
Rs. 29,30,915/- on the invoices of Alka Creations (P) Ltd. The Learned Adjudicat-
ing Authority disallowed these credits on the basis of diary, notebooks. As per
the adjudicating authority these documents indicated that the amounts were
paid by Shri Raman Bhatia to one Shri Giriraj for supplying the goods (raw mate-
rial) without bills to the main appellant and the amount realised on account of
undervaluation of the goods were utilised for payment of unaccounted raw ma-
terial obtained from local suppliers. It was also submitted that no reliance could
be placed on these third party documents, unless these are independently cor-
roborated. It was categorically submitted by Shri S.C. Kathuria, that the inputs at
the strength of which the Cenvat credit were procured from M/s. JBCPL and
Alka Creations and the payments were made by cheque. In the circumstances,
there is no question of issuing any directions or instructions to Shri Raman
Bhatia to procure the inputs without documents and transport thereof to the ap-
pellants factory. DCGEI never examined M/s. Industrial Importers, M/s. Hindu-
stan Tin Works, M/s. Derby Overseas Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. N.F. Impex Pvt. Ltd.
from whom Shri Raman Bhatia has allegedly purchased inputs and sold the
same to the appellant as the first stage dealer. It was submitted that neither any
driver nor transporter, who transported these goods were ever summoned or
examined in support of allegation that the inputs have not been transported to
the appellant’s factory. It is the submission of the Learned Advocate that these
goods were loaded from the premises of M/s. JBCPL and were duly accompa-
nied by GRs along with the name of consignor, that is M/s. JBCPL. These invoic-
es were also accompanied with Form VAT-47 from the Sales Tax Department.
Therefore, the allegation about the non-receipt of inputs but only invoices is in-
correct and cannot be sustained. No enquiries were conducted from the VAT
Department also.
6. Although it is alleged and held by the adjudicating authority that the
appellant obtained Bazar Scrap without any invoice, however, there is no evi-
dence of transport thereof which was never brought on record by the investigat-
ing officer. It is on record that Shri Giriraj and Shri Deepak were alleged supplier
of Bazar Scrap to the appellant they were never examined by the department. In
view of above, there is no justification for denial of Cenvat credit to the main ap-
pellant on the basis of invoices issued by M/s. JBCPL and M/s. Alka Creations.
7. It was also submitted that the adjudicating authority had confirmed
the view charges in the show cause notice, that the money on procurement of
invoice, at the strength of which the Cenvat credit had been availed was paid
back in cash to the appellant after deducting the commission. It was also submit-
ted that there is no commercial sense in paying money by procuring only invoice
from the market and using that money in buying unaccounted scrap from the
market. Shri Kathuria, in his statement confirmed that no cash was received by

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st April 2020  295