TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 537X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntries in the stock register there is no overwriting of any sort in respect of most of the entries made in said inward register as disputed by AO - the appellants have produced certificates issued by the said supplier indicating that the inputs were delivered to the appellant factory in the suppliers own truck/tempo, hence they have not issued any LR, as against these evidences the Revenue has not putforth any contrary evidence in the form of any inculpatory statement of the appellant's functionaries, the driver of tempo or of the supplier of inputs - in favour of assessee. - E/1236/11 - - - Dated:- 13-7-2012 - Mr. M.V. Ravindran, J. For Appellant : Shri Ramesh Nair, Adv For Respondent : Shri P.R. Meena, A.R. Per : Mr. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the manufacturing activity takes place. He would draw my attention to a letter dated 29.01.03 vide which they had informed the superintendent of Central Excise, in-charge of the range office having jurisdiction over the factory regarding the various records maintained. He would specifically draw my attention to the records which are maintained by the appellant in form of stock registers, goods inward register, purchase register and other accounts maintained. After taking me through the said records, he would submit that the appellant had vide their letter dated 01.08.08 specifically informed the lower authorities regarding the non entry of the inputs in RG 23A Part-1 register. He would submit that the appellant had given the details of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ade in detail by both sides, I find that the issue involved in this case is totally fact based. 7. The issue to be decided in this appeal is whether appellant is able to prove from the records that they have received the inputs in question in respect of the six invoices which were issued by the suppliers in August 2003. 8. The contention of the department is that the appellant is not able to produce evidences of LR/consignment note, or any other evidence which would indicate that the appellant has received the quantity as indicated the said invoices during the period August 2003 in order to make him eligible for availment of cenvat credit. 9. After perusing the records, I find that the appellant had produced before me as well as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said goods are indicated in form of production issue slips which are shown to me and was also contended that the same were produced before lower authorities. 11. Further, I find that the ledger account as produced by the appellant before me and as well as produced before lower authorities, clearly indicate recording of the entries of the invoices in question as regards the receipt entry. The said records clearly indicate that as per ledger account an amount payable to M/s. New India Extrusion Pvt. Ltd. against these very invoices in dispute are recorded and subsequently, the said ledger account also reveals that the appellant had discharged/made the payments of said bills which is recorded as bill-wise payment by a specific cheques ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... supplier of the inputs wherein said supplier had indicated that the inputs were delivered to the appellant factory in the suppliers own truck/tempo, hence they have not issued any LR, as against these evidences, I find that Revenue has not putforth any contrary evidence in the form of any inculpatory statement of the appellant s functionaries, the driver of tempo or of the supplier of inputs. In the absence of any contrary evidence, in my view, the appellants have been able to factually prove that they have received the inputs and consumed the same, inadvertently not entering the same in RG 23A Part-1 register. 13. Accordingly, on this factual matrix, in the facts and circumstances of this case, I find that the impugned order is unsusta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|