9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (4) TMI 143X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said visiting officers resumed invoices issued by M/s. Aggarwal Plastic (India), Delhi Respondent No. 1 on the ground that they had been issuing the fake sale invoices. The statements of the representative of the re6pondent Nos. 2 & 3 were recorded wherein they stated that they received inputs accompanied with duty paying documents of M/s. Aggarwal, Plastic (India) Respondent No. 1 and utilized in the finished goods. Show cause notices dated 17-7-2003 were issued to the respondent Nos. 1 & 2. It has been alleged that Shri Rajiv Aggarwal, authorized signatory of respondent No. 1 in his statement dated 14-2-2003 stated that their firm was registered for the manufacture of PVC compound and there has been no production of PVC compound since 1-1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e materials were procured by them from the open market. He also submits that Delhi Commissionerate issued show cause notice on 20-5-2004 to the respondent No. 1 for passing Cenvat credit on the basis of the invoices without physically manufacturing/supplying the excisable goods. Therefore, both the authorities below wrongly allowed the credit to the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 and failed to impose penalty on the respondents. 4. Shri Naveen Mullick, learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 submits that the respondent No. 1 manufactured inputs in question and cleared on payment of duty as evident from the Central excise duty paying documents and RT-12 return which were examined by both the authorities below. The department did not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondent received goods accompanied with duty paying documents supported by transporter certificate and the said inputs were utilized in the manufacture of the finished goods arid there is no scope to deny Cenvat credit to the respondent Nos. 2 & 3. He further submits that the department initiated proceedings on the basis of the uncorroborated statement of Rajiv Aggarwal and, therefore, the same cannot be relied upon. He relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Tripathi Rubber Industries & Ors. v. CCE, Kanpur, Final Order Nos. 773-76/05-Ex., dated 14-9-2005, (194) E.L.T. 103 (T). He also submits that the respondents produced copy of RT-12 returns and the sale tax certificate of the respondent No. 1 before the authoritie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o, the contention of the learned DR that the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 availed credit on the basis of the fake invoices are not sustainable. The learned DR strongly relied upon the statement of Shri Rajiv Aggarwal. It is seen that the statement of Rajiv Aggarwal is not corroborated by any evidence. On the contrary, the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 produced several evidences in support of their contention that the inputs in question were received by them accompanied with duty paying documents. It is further seen from reply to the show cause notice of the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 that they asked for cross-examination of Rajiv Aggarwal. In the case of M/s. Tripathi Rubber Industries & Ors. v. CCE, Kanpur (Supra), the Tribunal held as under :- "As already n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
