9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (9) TMI 708X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 011 - Shri D.N. Panda, J. Appearence: Shri K.K. Sharma, Advocate For Appellant Shri S.K. Panda, Jt. CDR For Respondent Per D.N. Panda: 1.1 Learned Counsel submits that CBFS was usable as substitute to the furnace oil and that was an input for manufacture. Such input having been purchased and used usability thereof is not questionable. But, Revenue relying on the report obtained from various authorities discarded claim of the appellant in both the cases. While report obtained by Appellant from Reliance Industries indicating that CBFS can also be used as fuel was discarded, the matter being of technical nature, that should have been considered by both the authorities below. But they failed to do so. He further submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nace oil, that cannot be substituted as furnace oil. Similar was the version of a public sector concern undertaking i.e. Hundustan Petroleum Corporation. Therefore, the appellant fails to succeed on both counts before the Tribunal. To this proposition learned Counsels submits that the Tribunal has already taken a view in the case of CCE, Ghaziabad vs. Chaudhary Hammer Works Ltd. - 2010 (260) ELT 451 (Tri. - Del.) to grant relief in respect of use of CBFS. 3. Heard both sides and perused the record. 4.1 Show cause notice mde clear that it has a foundation to make allegation. Firstly the appellants did not receive inputs and secondly inputs in question claimed to have been used was not usable on the basis of technical report issued by a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no genuine transaction the appellant appears to had oblique motive in the deal and not entitled to Cenvat credit. This can be said following the ratio laid down by Hon'ble High Court of Punjab Haryana in the case of Ranjeev Alloys Ltd. vs. CCE, Chandigarh - 2009 (247) ELT 27 (P H). 5. At this stage learned Counsel's prayer was to remand the matter. That is not entertainable for the reason that the department need not prove its case with mathematical precision or formula. Onus of proof was on the appellant to satisfactorily explain receipt of goods as well as use thereof following the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Alagappa Cements Pvt. Ltd. vs. CEGAT, Chennai - 2010 (260) ELT 511 (Mad.). When t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
