9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 23X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al has been preferred by the revenue under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short "the Act") against order dated 24.1.2008 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), claiming following substantial questions of law:- i) Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal is correct in giving contrary ruling on similar facts, when ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat numbers of the vehicles entered in the record were fictitious from which it was inferred that the inputs were never purchased by the assessee and cenvat credit was wrongly availed. After consideration, order-in-original dated 10.1.2006 was passed confirming the demand and imposing penalty which was affirmed on appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals). However, on further appeal, the Tribunal set a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ra) relied upon by the Revenue, the manufacturer failed to establish that inputs mentioned in the invoices were received in the factory. The facts of the present case are different. In the present case, the appellant made payment regarding the goods directly to the TISCO and thereafter inputs were released by their consignment agent. There is no evidence on record to show that TISCO is also conniv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
