Misc. Order Nos. 20389-20392/2014 in Application Nos. E/Stay/179-180/2012, E/COD/13-14/2012 in Appeal Nos. E/313-314/2012-DB. Case: Finecab Wires & Cables P. Ltd. Vs Commr. of C. Ex., Cus. & S.T., Hyderabad-I. Delhi High Court CEGAT & CESTAT Cases
| Case Number | Misc. Order Nos. 20389-20392/2014 in Application Nos. E/Stay/179-180/2012, E/COD/13-14/2012 in Appeal Nos. E/313-314/2012-DB |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Shri Joseph Dominic, Advocate and For Respondent: Shri N. Jagdish, AR |
| Judges | Shri B.S.V. Murthy, Member (T) and S.K. Mohanty, Member (J) |
| Issue | Central Excise Act, 1944 - Section 35F |
| Citation | 2014 (304) ELT 315 (Tri. - Bang.) |
| Judgement Date | February 18, 2014 |
| Court | Delhi High Court CEGAT & CESTAT Cases |
Order:
B.S.V. Murthy, Member (T)
-
Appellant is seeking condonation of delay of 6 days in filing the appeals. We find that the cause of delay has been explained satisfactorily. Therefore, we condone the delay and accordingly, COD applications are allowed.
-
Learned consultant submits that the case against the appellant is availment of Cenvat credit without receiving inputs in their factory. He submits that the case of the department is based on the following:
Three suppliers have supplied copper wire to the appellant, the duty paid on which was availed as Cenvat credit of duty paid, but they did not have facility for manufacture; the power consumption in respect of one supplier was negligible which shows no production was possible; in respect of two other suppliers, they have not any manufacturing facility to convert ''copper wire rods'' into ''copper wire''; raw materials of the appellant is copper wire rods whereas the raw materials which they received was copper wire; the appellant paid more than Rs. 75 lakhs admitting the description of the goods in the invoices as copper wire rods which was not received by them; three vehicles shown to have been utilized could not transport the goods; in respect of two cases, within 44 minutes two consignments have reached the appellant premises when the distance between the supplier and the appellant is at least 60 Kms. Learned counsel submits that the appellant had been producing finished goods and clearing the same on payment of duty; receipt of raw materials and production of finished goods were reflected in their accounts and Returns were accepted by Revenue; as regards two consignments which had reached within 44 minutes, it was explained that there was a mistake in entering time of arrival in one of the consignments; no verification has been conducted with the transporters to confirm whether the goods have been transported; no admission statements have been recorded from the appellant; the appellant''s case is made out on the basis of statement from the suppliers who also not stated that they have not supplied the goods but based on the investigation which found that they did not have facility for manufacture. He submits that in view of the above position, it cannot be said that the appellants have not received inputs in their factory and not manufactured the finished goods. In any case, the appellants have paid more than Rs. 75 lakhs during the course of...
To continue reading
Request your trial