2008 (5) TMI 106 - AT - Central Excise

Credit denied on the ground that vehicle number mentioned in the invoices under which inputs were received are not of trucks and the registered dealer had not received the inputs, hence, the appellants had not received the inputs - appellants produced copy of invoice showing truck number & also produced G/R issued by the transport company showing the same truck numbers - Octroi receipts & weighment slip also bearing the same truck number credit not deniable

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against denial of credit on the ground of incorrect vehicle numbers in invoices and penalties imposed.

Analysis:
The appellants contested the denial of credit based on the ground that the vehicle numbers mentioned in the invoices did not correspond to trucks and that the registered dealer had not received the inputs. They argued that the invoices in dispute contained vehicle numbers HR 3A 8001, PB 23 1795, and PCU 624, which they received from M/s. Vishal & Co. The appellants provided supporting documents such as G/R from the transport company, octroi receipts, and weighment slips, all indicating the same truck numbers. They asserted that the inputs were used in the manufacture of final products cleared after duty payment, and there was no evidence of procuring raw materials from other sources. Therefore, they contended that the denial of credit was unwarranted.

On the other hand, the Revenue conducted inquiries with the transport office to verify the registration of the truck numbers mentioned in the invoices. The inquiries revealed that the numbers did not correspond to trucks, leading to the justification for denying the credit. However, upon review, it was found that the appellants had indeed received the inputs from a registered dealer, supported by invoices showing duty payment, G/R from the transport company, octroi receipts, and weighment slips all bearing the same truck numbers. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the denial of credit based on the discrepancy in vehicle numbers was not sustainable. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were allowed.

In summary, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, emphasizing that the evidence presented, including consistent truck numbers across various documents, demonstrated that the inputs were received from a registered dealer for the manufacture of final products. The denial of credit solely based on the discrepancy in vehicle numbers on the invoices was deemed unjustified, leading to the reversal of the decision and the allowance of the appeals.