Case Law Details
Commissioner of Central Goods And Service Tax Excise & Customs Vs Mittal Pigments Pvt Ltd (CESTAT Delhi)
CESTAT Delhi held that demand solely on the basis of the statement of the person who was not allowed to be cross-examined by the appellant is unjustified.
Facts- M/s. Mittal Pigments Pvt. Ltd.is engaged in the manufacture of various excisable products viz. Lead & Alloy Ingot, Lead Chloride, Lead Acetate, Zinc Oxide, Zinc Alloy, Zinc Ingot, Tri Basic Lead Sulphate (TBLS), Litharge (Lead Oxide), Red Lead, Grey Oxide, Antimony Tri Oxide Antimony Triacetate, Antimony Metal, Ferrous Sulphate etc. They were availing Cenvat Credit of duty paid in terms of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR).
Department got information that Shri Amit Gupta was operating some registered dealer companies inter-alia namely (i) M/s Brilliant Metals (P) Ltd., New Delhi (“M/s BMPL”) (ii) M/s Unnati Alloys (P) Ltd., Jaipur (“M/s UAPL”) (iii) M/s Moral Alloys (P) Ltd., Delhi (“M/s MAPL”) etc. and is issuing the invoices with intent to passing on inadmissible Cenvat credit to numerous manufacturers and dealers without delivery of the goods with the invoices. The manufacturers used to procure the market scrap without bills on a cash basis and did not account for the same in their books of account. To cover up such unaccounted purchases and to avail of cenvat credit, they used to procure Cenvatable invoices of prime metal from the dealer companies operated by Shri Amit Gupta without being accompanied by the goods.
Based on the search operation and statement of Shri Amit Gupta, it was alleged that the appellant have wrongly availed cenvat credit on various invoices which were absolutely not genuine and goods mentioned didn’t accompany with those invoices.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
