9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 960X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... actory of the appellant, nothing incriminating have been found. If same would have been found, it would have been brought on record, as there is nothing on record, the question arises from where the goods were procured from the appellant for manufacturing excisable goods. When Revenue has alleged that they have not received the goods then duty cast on the revenue to brought on record from where the goods were procured. The allegation leveled against the appellant are only on the basis of statement of supplier. No cross examination of the supplier was afforded to the appellant for fair trial. As investigation is deficient and no corroborative evidence have been produced by the Revenue on record, the same is the observation of this Tribuna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... med against the appellant to deny Cenvat credit on inputs along with interest and equivalent amount of penalty was also imposed. The said order was challenged before learned Commissioner (Appeals) who also confirmed the order of adjudication. Aggrieved from he said order, appellant is before me. 3. Shri P K Mittal, Advocate learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant have physically received the goods and same was stated by the Department officials of the appellant on 23.4.08 at the time of visit of the Department official. He also submits that goods were physically received by them through transporter and there are endorsements on the documents for passing through the goods of check post of the suppliers goods and to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es and they have taken the Cenvat credit thereon. This allegation was made against the appellant on the basis of statement of the supplier that is M/s. KPIL which was recorded on 14.2.06 wherein the supplier of the goods has stated that I am not manufacturing the goods. In this case, goods have been procured by the appellant during November, 2004 to April, 2005. From the statement of supplier, it is not coming out that during the period November, 2004 to April, 2005, the manufacturer supplier was not manufacturing the goods. The statement of supplier is vague. Moreover, the appellant was having supporting evidence in the form of check post endorsement, proof of sales tax payment and towards the goods, payment was made through account paye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eriod prior to the search. Therefore, the statement of inputs supplier is not for the period from October, 2003 to August, 2004. Further, in the case of Prakash Industrial Corporation (supra), this Tribunal has observed that the department did not bother to investigate whether the actual vehicle numbers used in transportation of goods to the place of the assessee, therefore, no evidence has been brought on record. In the case of Motherson Sumi Electric Wires (supra), again this Tribunal has observed that there is no evidence in the form of statement of transporters to support the case of the Department regarding non-receipt of inputs by the appellants. In this case also, the department has failed to produce any statement of the transporter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
