CCE Vs. NATIONAL STEEL INDS. LTD., SHRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are 3 appeals filed by Revenue against Order -in -Appeal No. 128 -130/2003 dated 23.4.2003 by which the Commissioner -(Appeals) has set aside the penalties imposed on National Steel Industries Ltd. and others.

(2.) SHRI V. Valte, learned SDR, submitted that M/s. National Steel Industries Ltd. manufacture C.R. coils/Galvanised sheets; that they are engages in trading activity with M/s. Mahabir Prasad and Co., Ghaziabad; that they were issuing Central Excise invoices to Mahabir Prasad and Co.; that a show cause notice dated 7.4.2000 was issued to the Respondents for imposing penalties as Mahabir Prasad and Co. were taking credit for passing the same to their customers on the strength of fake invoices issued by National Steel Industries Ltd.; that the Additional Commissioner under Order -in -Original No. 36/2002 dated 31.10.2002 imposed penalty on all the three Respondents; that the Additional Commissioner, however, did not impose any penalty on M/s. Mahabir Prasad and Co.; that on appeals filed by the Respondents, the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the Order -in -original on the ground that there is no evidence on record to link the Respondents with fraudulent activity indulged into by M/s. Mahabir Prasad and Co. whose end fake invoices were generated at.

(3.) LEARNED SDR submitted that there was 41 invoices in the name of the Respondents out of which only 4 invoices were found to be genuine and 37 invoices were fake one; that the invoice No. 46 dated 18.5.91 which is a fake invoice was submitted to handwriting expert alongwith genuine invoice No. 36 dated 15.5.95 for comparison of handwriting; that the handwriting expert in his report reported that the document which were submitted for examination are not sufficient; that thereafter Shri Hemant Manjrekar, respondent in the present matter and some other persons who were preparing invoices during May 1995 were requested to copy out the invoice No. 46 in another blank invoice in their own handwriting; that after examination, the expert in his report dated 24.5.97 reported that the writing of bogus invoice No. 46 dated 18.5.95 and writing of invoice No. 36 dated 15.5.95 is similar one and has been written by one and the same person; that in his report he has given his conclusion that he has carefully examined handwriting of invoice No. 46 and compared with invoice No. 36 which was in handwriting of Shri Hemant Manjrekar and both the invoices had been written by one and the same person. The learned SDR also mentioned that Shri Hemant Manjrekar had accepted the fact in his statement that invoice No. 36 was prepared by him; that the request for cross -examination of the handwriting expert was not acceded to as he had given his conclusion in written manner and if there was any doubt it should have been clarified by the Respondents by giving point -wise objection before the Adjudicating Authority which was not done by them; that cross -examination is not mandatory to be allowed in all the cases. He finally submitted that there is a direct link against the Respondents as invoice No. 46 was written in hand -writing of Hemant Manjrekar; that if there was no nexus between the Respondents and M/s. Mahabir Prasad and Co. it would have not been possible to get fake invoices in the handwriting of Commercial Assistant of the Respondents.