9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (4) TMI 365X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icable - There is no dispute that appellants did purchase the goods and there is absolutely no evidence to show that even one transaction out of several is not genuine and goods have not been received but only bills have been raised - Since there is no evidence to show that inputs have not been received and in all the cases, invoices issued by the 1st/2nd stage dealer show the name of the appellant as consignee and credit has been taken on that basis - Decided in favour of assessee. - E/953/10 - - - Dated:- 5-4-2011 - Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Dr. P. Babu, JJ. Shri J.C. Patel, Adv. for the Assessee; Shri I. Ahmed, SDR for the Revenue. Per: Mrs. Archana Wadhwa: After dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of duty an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order placed on the dealer but to an intermedia viz. M/s Darmin Steel Suppliers. This view is taken on the ground that the goods were being received under the delivery challans and commercial invoices of M/s Darmin Steel Suppliers and payments were also made only to them on the ground that no payment was made to 1st/2nd stage dealer and M/s Darmin Steel Suppliers had issued delivery challans and invoices, credit has been denied. It was submitted by the ld.Advocate that the invoices show the appellant as a consignee and the name of the buyer as M/s Darmin Steel Suppliers. It is not the case of the department that the goods were not received at all. We find that in this case, the credit is proposed to be denied only on the ground that M/s Da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s have undergone modifications, the principles underlying availment of CENVAT Credit remain the same. Therefore, this circular issued by the Board is applicable to the present case. We find in the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Mahadev Industries reported in 2000 (115) ELT 452 (Tri), this Tribunal had taken a view that ownership of inputs is not a requirement of law. But, in this case, there is no dispute that appellants did purchase the goods and there is absolutely no evidence to show that even one transaction out of several is not genuine and goods have not been received but only bills have been raised. Since there is no evidence to show that inputs have not been received and in all the cases, invoices issued by the 1st/2nd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
