9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 520X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... E/1634/2009 - 857/2011-SM(BR)(PB) - Dated:- 29-11-2011 - Shri Mathew John, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Smt. Renu Jagadev, SDR, for the Appellant. None, for the Respondent. [Order]. When the appeal was called none was present to represent the respondent. However a letter dated 20-6-2011 from the respondent was seen requesting that the case may be decided based on records available on file. 2. Respondents are manufacturers of Non-Alloy Steel Ingots. They were procuring their raw materials like MS Scrap, Sponge Iron, Ferro Alloys, etc., from various suppliers including M/s. Amit Steel Traders, Mandi Govindgarh, a registered dealer of such goods. Investigations conducted at the end of M/s. Amit Steel Traders showed that they wer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dit Rules, 2004. 7. Aggrieved by the order the Respondent filed an appeal with the Commissioner (Appeal). The Commissioner (Appeal) held that the facts of the case is similar to that in the case of Neepaz Steel Ltd. Others v. C.C.E. - 2008 (230) E.L.T. 218 (P H) and set aside the demand. Aggrieved by the order of Commissioner (Appeals) Revenue has filed this appeal. 8. The ld. DR appearing for revenue submits that in similar circumstances higher Courts have held that Cenvat credit taken can be recovered. He relies on the following decisions : (i) Mahesh C. Kadia v. C.C.E. - 2007 (217) E.L.T. 223 (Tri.-Mumbai); (ii) Rajeev Alloys Ltd. v. C.C.E. - 2009 (236) E.L.T. 124 (Tri.-Del.) upheld by Punjab Haryana High Court as r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... documents including (the invoices under dispute) on the basis of which the Modvat credit has been availed and utilized . 5. In this case also the Respondent has taken the plea that they have paid for the inputs by cheque. But it is clearly recorded that payments to the transporters was made in cash. When the allegation is about manipulated transactions just to take credit payment for such transaction through cheque is to be considered as part of manipulation only. Since the dispute is that the goods were not transported and the fact that the transporters were paid in cash does not help the case of the Respondent. Further the argument that the inputs were used in manufacture and final products cleared on payment of duty cannot be accepted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
