Ambaji Metal Indus. Vs. Cce

Ambaji Metal Indus. vs Cce

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Jul 19, 2002

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/28554

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/28554
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: N T C.N., P Chacko
Decided On: Jul 19, 2002
Subject: Service Tax

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Service Tax

Key legal issue: Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ambaji Metal Indus.

Respondent

Cce

Legal References

Reported In: (2002)(83)ECC796

Excerpt

.....this case is whether the appellants had, as a matter of fact, received the inputs in respect of which they had availed modvat credit. in the impugned order, commissioner has confirmed the allegation that inputs has actually not been received in the factory. learned sr. counsel representing the appellant has pointed out that the finding reached by the commissioner is without referring to the evidence on record. according to him, the assessee had presented evidence regarding receipt and issue of the raw-materials before the adjudicating authority. in this context he referred to chart relating to details regarding inputs received, the particulars of supplier, document under which the supply was made lorry receipt showing the transport, entry in the rg 23 a part 1 register and details of issue of the raw-materials for manufacture. the counsel in particular referred to the last two columns of the chart which indicated chit no. and date for issue of the inputs for manufacture. he pointed out that commissioner has failed to look at the evidence produced by the appellants. he referred to clause (iii) on page 4 of the impugned order wherein the commissioner recorded as under: (iii) now coming to the allegation regarding availment and utilization of modvat credit on aluminium wire rods, sheets etc. which are alleged to have never been brought to the factory, i find that firstly, the details of lorry receipts etc. given by the party along with their reply to show cause notice, also could have been placed by them before the investigation officer, thereby facilitating ascertainment of their veracity and acceptability. it is not clear as to why this straightforward option was not exercised by the assessee. i also find that the assessee have made no attempt to count and have made no submissions to rebut the allegation in the show cause notice regarding the lgs of various transport companies having been in same person's handwriting and having been signed by the same person etc......

Full Judgment

1. The main issue for consideration in this case is whether the appellants had, as a matter of fact, received the inputs in respect of which they had availed Modvat Credit. In the impugned order, Commissioner has confirmed the allegation that inputs has actually not been received in the factory. Learned Sr. Counsel representing the appellant has pointed out that the finding reached by the Commissioner is without referring to the evidence on record. According to him, the assessee had presented evidence regarding receipt and issue of the raw-materials before the adjudicating authority. In this context he referred to Chart relating to details regarding inputs received, the particulars of supplier, document under which the supply was made lorry receipt showing the transport, entry in the RG 23 A part 1 Register and details of issue of the raw-materials for manufacture. The Counsel in particular referred to the last two columns of the Chart which indicated Chit No. and date for issue of the inputs for manufacture. He pointed out that Commissioner has failed to look at the evidence produced by the appellants. He referred to Clause (iii) on Page 4 of the impugned order wherein the Commissioner recorded as under: (iii) Now coming to the allegation regarding availment and utilization of Modvat credit on Aluminium wire rods, sheets etc.

which are alleged to have never been brought to the factory, I find that firstly, the details of lorry receipts etc. given by the party along with their reply to show cause notice, also could have been placed by them before the investigation officer, thereby facilitating ascertainment of their veracity and acceptability. It is not clear as to why this straightforward option was not exercised by the assessee. I also find that the assessee have made no attempt to count and have made no submissions to rebut the allegation in the show cause notice regarding the LGs of various transport companies having been in same person's handwriting and having been signed by the same person etc. They have also kept silent regarding the allegation of blank L.R. Books having been given to their representatives. They had also failed to give any cogent explanation or non-inclusion of these goods in their private reports/returns as material having been received. In fact the random verification shows that several of the L.R's now being adduced by the assessee are from the very books which are stated to have been handed over to the assessees in blank form by the transporters.

2. The learned Counsel pointed out that the Commissioner was in error in holding that the evidence should have been produced before the Inquiring Authority. The learned Counsel submitted that a respondent produces its defence before the adjudicating authority and that authority was bound to consider the evidence rather than rejecting that evidence on the ground that the material was not produced before the officers who were enquiring the matter. We have heard the learned DR also.

3. On perusal of the records we are of the opinion that the impugned order has been passed ex-parte inasmuch as the evidence relied upon and produced by the appellants was not considered. It is clear from the chart produced by the appellants that the appellant was relying on contemporary records maintained in the factory for their defence. Such records required due consideration before reaching a finding abut the receipt of the inputs, their utilization, manufacture of final products etc.

4. In the above situation we are of the opinion that this case is required to be remitted to the original authority for re-consideration.

Accordingly the impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded for passing a fresh order after considering the appellant's defence.

Needless to say that the appellants shall be given due opportunity to present evidence and explain the case before passing of the adjudication order.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Ambaji Metal Indus. vs Cce Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge N T C.N., P Chacko