Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2012 (10) TMI 263

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... orter, there is no other evidence on record to indicate that the assessee has in fact not received the goods in question – cenvat credit allowed - 410 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 21-1-2011 - Harsha Devani and H.B. Antani, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Ms. Sejal K. Mandavia, for the Appellant. None, for the Respondent. [Order per : Harsha Devani, J. (Oral)]. - The Commissioner of Central Excise Customs, Ahmedabad-II has, in this appeal under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (the Act), challenged the order dated 7-8-2009 [2010 (261) E.L.T. 508 (Tri. - Ahmd.)] made by the Customs, Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal), proposing the following questions : (1) Whether provisions of Rule 3 and Rule 9 provides .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... facture of its final products. However, in order to avail the Cenvat credit, it was obtaining duty paid invoices of different inputs and was wrongly availing cenvat credit on the strength of such documents without actual receipt of inputs against such documents. The intelligence also indicated that since the duty paid raw material as shown in the duty paying documents were not physically received in its factory for being used by it in or in relation to manufacture of finished goods, the Cenvat credit in such cases where inputs were actually not received and only duty paying documents were being received, was not admissible to the assessee. Accordingly, investigation came to be carried out which revealed that the assessee was procuring diffe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ulminated into an order dated 3-10-2008 made by the adjudicating authority confirming the demand of Rs. 2,83,191/- under Rule 19 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (the Rules) read with Section 11A of the Act along with interest and penalty. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), but did not succeed. The assessee, therefore, preferred second appeal before the Tribunal, who vide the impugned order, allowed the appeal with consequential relief. 3. Ms. Sejal Mandavia, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant, reiterated the grounds stated in the memo of appeal and placed reliance upon the reasoning adopted by the adjudicating authority as well as by the appellate Commissioner. 4. A per .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ost had entered the receipt of copper ingots in their record. Thus, even the official records maintained at the check post indicate receipt of copper. Merely because in the record of the transporter, two types of LRs had been issued in respect of the goods carried/transported by M/s. Singal Road Carriers which indicated transportation of miscellaneous goods and the other which indicated transportation of copper ingots/wire brass, the Department has jumped to the conclusion that copper ingots had not actually been transported. Except for the aforesaid evidence, there is no evidence whatsoever to indicate that M/s. Pranav Metal Mart, Nadiad had not received copper ingots or that the respondent assessee had not received the ingots along with t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eceived by the assessee; there was no dispute that the LRs were issued by the transporter showing that the assessee is the consignee of the goods; the case of revenue was based on the goods registers maintained by the transporter which indicates the description of the goods as miscellaneous . According to the Tribunal, this fact, by itself, could not be held to be sufficient for arriving at the conclusion that the inputs were never transported to the assessee s factory. The Tribunal found as a matter of fact that all documentary evidence on record supported the assessee s case about the receipt of inputs, whereas there was no independent corroborative evidence produced on record by the revenue in support of its case. 8. From the facts no .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates