Case Law Details
Sainath Industries Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & ST (CESTAT Ahmedabad)
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that as DRI just prior to investigations by DGCEI took away all records pertaining to the import of scrap, the manufacturer cannot be expected to produce documents showing transport and receipt of the goods in the factory. Accordingly, demand of Cenvat alleging non-receipt of inputs set aside.
Facts- The Appellants, M/s. Sainath Industries during the period June 2004 to November 2006 availed Cenvat Credit of the Additional Duty of Customs (CVD), Education Cess thereon and Special Additional Duty of Customs (SAD) paid on the inputs viz. Aluminium/Copper/ Brass/ Zinc Scrap imported by them for use in relation to the manufacture of Ingots of Aluminium/Copper/Brass/ Zinc, which were cleared on payment of duty.
In November 2006, the DGCEI initiated investigations in respect of imports of Aluminium/Copper/ Brass/ Zinc Scrap made by the Appellant, M/s. Sainath Industries as well as other importers-manufacturers.
It was the case of DGCEI that in all the aforesaid cases of imports of the scrap by various manufacturers, who had all engaged M/s. Pankaj Shipping and Transport Company, part of the consignments of the said Scrap were off-loaded at Bhiwandi/ Navi Mumbai en-route to the factories of the said manufacturers and that the same were disposed of in the local market in cash and that instead of such imported duty paid scrap so disposed of, the said manufacturers procured local non-duty paid Bazaar Scrap. It was therefore the case of DGCEI that the said manufacturers were not entitled to Cenvat Credit of the duty paid on the imported scrap which was so disposed of.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
