M/S. Bhawani Steel Traders vs C.C.E. Delhi-Iv

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 221-222/CE/APPL/DLH-IV/2014 dated 08.09.2014 by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Delhi-IV].

For approval and signature:

Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?

4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?

M/s. Bhawani Steel Traders .Appellants

Vs.

C.C.E. Delhi-IV .Respondent

Appearance:

Shri N.K. Sharma, Advocate for the Appellants

Shri R.K. Mishra, DR for the Respondent

CORAM:

Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Date of Hearing: 13.02.2015

FINAL ORDER NO. 50388/2015-EX(SM)

Per Ashok Jindal:

After hearing the parties, I am of the view that appeals themselves can be disposed of at this stage. Therefore, all the appeals as well as stay petitions are taken up together for disposal with the consent of both the sides. The facts of the case are that DGCI conducted investigations in the case of M/s. Bhawani Steel Traders, who is engaged in the manufacturing steel tubes and was procuring raw material i.e. HR Coils from M/s. SAIL. M/s. Bhawani Steel Traders was also clearing certain inputs as such in terms of Rule 3(5) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The allegations against M/s. Bhawani Steel Traders was that they were procuring HR coils from M/s. SAIL and delivery of the same was taken up at Faridabad. Thereafter M/s. Bhawani Steel Traders was taking Cenvat credit on the strength of purchase invoices of SAIL and inputs bought from SAIL were clandestinely removed by Bhawani Steel Traders to various brokers / cutters at Delhi and thereafter they raised the cenvatable invoices tovarious manufacturers / dealers without physical delivery of the goods under the cover of inputs cleared as such against clandestinely removed inputs.

2. In these circumstances, proceedings were initiated against all the applicants before me as well as M/s. Bhawani Steel Traders in the cases listed before me, penalties have been imposed under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 against all the applicants. The applicants are before me and seeking stay of the demand and penalty as also sought disposal of the appeals.

3. Heard the parties.

4. During the course of arguments, it is brought in my notice that show cause notice issued by DGCI to M/s. Bhawani Steel Traders is still pending for adjudication. Therefore, penalties against the appellants is not imposable at this stage as the same is pre-mature.

4. As the proceedings against M/s. Bhawani Steel Traders against whom the allegations of clandestine removal of goods is there and same has not been adjudicated by the adjudicating authority therefore, imposing penalty against the appellants before me is pre-mature. In these circumstances, impugned orders are required to be set aside. Same view was taken by the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Bhawani Steel Traders vide Final Order No. 50980-50984/2014- SM (Br) dated 10.3.2014. Therefore, I set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority to adjudicate these matters also along with the cases of M/s. Bhawani Steel Traders.

5. Appeals as also stay petitions are disposed of in the above manner.

(Dictated and pronounced in the open court)

(Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial)

Bhanu

3

E/56060/2014-EX(SM)