SIMPLEX CASTINGS LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short 'the Act, 1944') arises from the Final Order No. 258-261/07-SM(BR), dated 27-12-2006 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in Appeal No. E/513-516/2005-SM. The facts, in nutshell, are that the appellant-company is engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods. The appellant-company was also availing Duty credit on the input used in or in relation to manufacture of the aforesaid finished goods in terms of Rule 57-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (for short 'the Rules, 1944'). The appellant availed irregular Duty credit of Rs. 2,67,364/-, Rs. 71,024/- and Rs. 1,00,878/- against certain invoices issued by M/s. Jain Udyog, and M/s. Tara Re-Rolling Mills, Tedesara. Three show-cause-notices being C. No. V (72) 15-63/Off/98/Adj/21351-56 dated 9-9-1999 involving Modvat credit of Rs. 2,67,364/- availed during the period September, 1994 to August, 1995; C. No. V (Ch: 72) 15-73/Off/JC/2000/Adj/5123 dated 7-3-2000 involving Modvat credit of Rs. 71,024/- availed during the period March, 1995 to April, 1995; and C. No. V (MOD) 15-03/R/RJN/BHI/2000/Adj/16470 dated 9-8-2000 involving Modvat credit of Rs. 1,00,878/- availed during the period August, 1995 to October, 1995 were issued to the appellant proposing disallowing and recovery of aforesaid Modvat Credit from the appellant under Rule 57(I)(II) of the Rules, 1944 read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short 'the Act, 1944') by invoking the extended period of five years. The show-cause- notice also proposed penalty against the appellant under Rule 173Q of the Rules, 1944 along with mandatory penalty equivalent to the amount disallowed under Rule 57-I[4] of the Rules, 1944 read with Section 11AC of the Act, 1944. The appellant filed detailed reply to the show-cause-notices. According to the appellant, it produced documentary evidence in its support.

(2.) The adjudicating authority i.e. the Assistant Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise, Division-II, Bhilai, after going through the evidences on record, came to the conclusion that the appellant has received no inputs and there was only paper transaction between the appellant and the supplier. It was also recorded that the unit of the supplier was closed during the relevant period. However, Modvat invoice was issued in favour of the appellant to facilitate the appellant to avail Modvat credit.

(3.) There against the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Raipur, being appeal No. 219-222/RPR.II/ 2004. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Raipur, by its order dated 25-11-2004 confirmed the demands after denying the credit taken in respect of inputs received by the appellant and upheld the findings recorded by the adjudicating authority i.e. the Assistant Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise, Division-II, Bhilai.