9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 644X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e date two invoices has been issued and quantity of one invoice has been taken into consideration, if quantity of both the invoices is taken into consideration then there will be no difference in quantity. Goods have been loaded to some other vehicle. Therefore, there is a difference in vehicle number. It is a fact that goods have been received by the appellant in their factory as goods have been manufactured from the inputs of same has been cleared on payment of duty. Moreover, no statement of the supplier of goods and the transporter have been recorded to corroborate the allegations against the appellant. Further, I find that appellant has produced a certificate from the supplier of goods that they have supplied the goods and received ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was issued by invoking extended period of limitation to deny the Cenvat Credit on the above discrepancies. The matter was adjudicated and demand proposed on the show cause notice were confirmed and also the adjudication order was confirmed. Thereafter, appellant filed the appeal before this Tribunal. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the discrepancies pointed out during the course of the audit has been explained by the appellant explaining that in the case of difference of dates it is submitted that the goods were cleared under the challan and thereafter invoice is being issued. Therefore, invoice may be issued on the same day or the very next day. For the difference in quantity he submits that on the same day two invoic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s case are different from the facts of the case which has been relied on. Therefore, Cenvat Credit cannot be denied. In these circumstances, he prayed that impugned order be set aside. 4. On the other hand Ld. Commissioner AR opposes the contention of the Ld. Counsel and submits that it is a fact on record that there was a discrepancy of weight, dates and vehicle numbers. She further submits that as per Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 the goods are to be cleared against the invoice and in this case admittedly goods have not been received by the appellant against the challan. Therefore, Cenvat Credit has been rightly denied. She further drew my attention for invoking the extended period of limitation and submits that in the show ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her purpose. In that case vehicle has been changed. Goods have been loaded to some other vehicle. Therefore, there is a difference in vehicle number. It is a fact that goods have been received by the appellant in their factory as goods have been manufactured from the inputs of same has been cleared on payment of duty. Moreover, no statement of the supplier of goods and the transporter have been recorded to corroborate the allegations against the appellant. Further, I find that appellant has produced a certificate from the supplier of goods that they have supplied the goods and received the payment through account payee cheque. These facts have not been controverted by the revenue at any stage. Revenue has relied on the case of Baldva Textil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
