9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (4) TMI 558X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellants during the period August, 2004 to March, 2005 procured inputs i.e., MS Ingots for manufacture of final products and availed Cenvat credit on the inputs received by them from the registered dealers. The allegation was that on verification of the dealer s premises, it was found that no such dealers existed at the said address and hence, invoices on which Cenvat credit was availed by the assessee for the above said period were found to be not appropriate for the purpose of availing Cenvat credit, hence, Cenvat credit needs to be disallowed. Coming to such a conclusion, show cause notices were issued to all the three appellants. The adjudicating authority after considering the submissions made by the appellants before her, did not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of the Hon ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of CC, Delhi-III v. Myron Electricals Pvt. Ltd. - 2007 (207) E.L.T. 664 (P H) and decision of Hon ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Vimal Enterprise v. UOI - 2006 (195) E.L.T. 267 (Guj.). 4. The learned SDR appearing on behalf of the Revenue would submit that the appellants having availed the credit, were not able to pass the hurdle of provisions of Rule 7(3) inasmuch as that they had to confirm that the eligibility to admissible Cenvat credit. It is her submission that assessee has not produced any evidence documentary or otherwise to prove that they had taken reasonable steps to satisfy themselves about the identity and address of the supplier of the goods, more so a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cating authority in the findings. We find that in the absence of any such findings, it is very clear that the appellants had procured the goods from the registered dealers, who were issued registration certificate by the department themselves and the contents of invoice of registered dealer are correct. 5.2 We find that the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of CCE v. Myron Electricals Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is squarely on the issue. We may reproduce the said ratio. 5. This contention has no merit and over-looks the clarification by the Board itself in the circular relied upon by the Tribunal, namely, Circular No. 441/7/99 dated 23-2-99 as well as Notification No. 7/99-C.E. amending Rule 57G of the Central ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
