9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 113X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onal Central Excise authorities were received stating that invoices referred for verification were issued by the respective supplier on payment of duty mentioned therein. Thus, there is no dispute that the duty paying documents are genuine. It is also revealed from the records that the suppliers supplied the goods and the appellant arranged the transportation. Impugned order that the Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the appellant had not produced the Lorry Receipts of the same and the evidence of payments made to the transporters. It is noticed that the appellants produced the Cash Payment Vouchers of transportation of goods before the Tribunal. On perusal of the said evidence, I find that some cash payment vouchers were signed on p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s persons including Shri Vishnu Agarwal, partner and Shri Kalpesh Rathod, Manager-cum-Authorised Signatory and the transporters. 3. A Show Cause Notice dated 30.03.2009 was issued by the Joint Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs, Vapi proposing the demand of CENVAT credit amounting to ₹ 32,08,820/- alongwith interest and penalty of equal amount of CENVAT credit on the appellant No. 1. It has also proposed to impose penalty on the other appellants. It has been alleged that during the period from March 2004 to March 2008, the appellant availed CENVAT credit on the basis of CENVAT invoices, without actual receipt of the inputs. By the adjudication order, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of wrongly availed CENVAT cr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... drew attention of the Bench to the payment vouchers in the memorandum of appeal. She has filed written submission which is kept on record. 5. Learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). He submits that as per RTO report the vehicle numbers mentioned in the invoices are not capable of carry such a huge quantity of materials. He further submits that onus lies on the assessee to establish the receipt of the goods in the present case. The assessee failed to prove the receipt of the goods and therefore, they are not eligible to avail credit. He further submits that the appellants failed to produce Lorry Receipt/ Transport payment vouchers before the lower authorities. 6. After h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sioner vs. Motabhai Iron and Steel Industries 2015 (316) ELT 374 (Guj.), has observed that merely on the basis of such an RTO report credit can not be denied holding that inputs were not received alongwith invoices. It is contended by the appellant that in many cases the transporters themselves give wrong registration numbers in their own vested interest and no enquiry was conducted with the transporters office. I find from the impugned order that the Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the appellant had not produced the Lorry Receipts of the same and the evidence of payments made to the transporters. It is noticed that the appellants produced the Cash Payment Vouchers of transportation of goods before the Tribunal. On perusal of the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
