2016 (9) TMI 575 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat credit - appellant has not received the goods in truck - vehicle number in question is not capable to carry such the goods - revenue has sought verification report, with regard to the vehicles number from the DTO office but the same have not been placed on record - Held that - the appellant has produced all the documents pertain into transportation of said goods from M/s SAIL to their factory and same has not been controverted by the Revenue with positive evidence. In these circumstances, the evidence produced by the appellant are having evidential value, therefore, I hold that the allegation made by the Revenue against the appellant are merely on assumption and presumption without producing any evidence or record. - Decided in favour of appellant

Summary

Issues:
- Denial of Cenvat credit on the grounds of alleged non-receipt of goods in truck
- Allegation of using light motor vehicles for transportation of goods
- Dispute regarding the capability of the oil tanker to carry the goods
- Consideration of evidence and documents in transportation of goods

Analysis:
The appellant, a manufacturer of Iron and Steel products, appealed against an order alleging irregularities in the transportation and receipt of goods. The investigation revealed discrepancies in the invoicing and transportation process, leading to the denial of Cenvat credit, duty demand, and penalty imposition. The appellant contended that goods were purchased from M/s Steel Authority of India Ltd. through a dealer, and proper documentation and payment to the transporter were provided but not considered by the authorities. The appellant argued that the goods were shifted between trucks during transportation, with evidence of entry into the jurisdiction where the factory was located.

The Revenue sought to uphold the denial of Cenvat credit based on the alleged incapability of the vehicles used for transportation, particularly questioning the oil tanker's capacity to carry the goods. However, the appellate authority found that the Revenue's allegations were based on assumptions without concrete evidence. The appellant had produced documents related to the transportation process, including receipts and payment records, which remained uncontested by the Revenue with substantial evidence.

Upon reviewing the arguments and evidence, the appellate authority concluded that the Revenue's claims lacked merit as they were unsupported by verified records or conclusive proof. The authority emphasized that the evidence presented by the appellant held significant value and refuted the Revenue's assumptions. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, granting relief to the appellant. The judgment highlighted the importance of substantiated evidence in disputes concerning the receipt and transportation of goods to ensure fair adjudication.