9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 989X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his appeal. 2. E/791/08 & E/985/07 are also filed by the revenue against dropping the penalties by the Commissioner (Appeals) against the respondent and M/s. Samay Exports has also filed a cross objection to E/791/08. 3. As the issue involved is common in all the appeals, therefore, all appeals are disposed of by this common order. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent M/s. Samay Exports is engaged in the activity of manufacture of stainless steel utensils for wh.ch the respondent is procuring main raw material stainless steel sheets from the suppliers and availing Cenvat credit of duty paid on these inputs. An investigation was conducted, various statements of suppliers as well as job worker were recorded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... On appeal filed by the revenue, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that as the charge against the main respondent has been set aside, therefore, penalty are not imposable. Against these orders, the revenue are in appeal. The main respondent M/s. Samay Exports has also filed cross objection to this appeals filed by the Revenue. 6. The ld. AR submits that in this case the statement given by the supplier clearly shows that the goods covered under the invoices were not physically received by the respondent, therefore the respondents are not entitled to take Cenvat credit. These statements has been supported by the statement of job workers who confirmed that the goods received by them for job work are not the same goods as they have been rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an that the respondent cannot take credit if they failed to produce the octroi receipts. He also submits that there is an allegation that vehicle number mentioned in the invoice are not able to carry the impugned goods from supplier end to the respondent's factory. In this context, he produced the certificate of registration obtained from the office of RTO to prove that vehicle no. in question is for the vehicle of a laden truck of Telco make which can carry the impugned goods. In these circumstances, it is prayed that the impugned order is to be upheld and appeals filed by the Revenue are to be dismissed. 8. Heard both sides. Perused the record and examined the impugned order. 9. In this case, the allegation against the respond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the respondent. Only in two cases, the octroi receipts could not be produced but this cannot be the ground for denial of Cenvat credit. Further, I find that out of 98 consignments only in case of 8 consignments, it has been alleged that the vehicle No. mentioned in the invoice are not able to carry the impugned goods. To counter this allegation also, the respondent has produced the certificate of registration issued by the RTO mentioning the vehicle No. which clearly shows that it is Tata laden truck which can carry the impugned goods. In these circumstances, the allegation levelled in the show cause notice are merely on assumption and presumption basis. When there are evidence on record for actual receipt of the goods by the respondent, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
