9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 1651X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The said assessee are availing the facility of cenvat credit of duty paid on inputs and capital goods. 2. During the course of internal audit, it was observed that the assessee had taken cenvat credit on inputs viz. HR Coils, Channel, Angels etc. on the strength of the dealer's invoices issued by M/s. Bikaner Agrico, M/s. Parshvam Steel Corporation and M/s. Sanjay Steel Traders, who had issued/provided invoices in the capacity of the 1st stage as well as 2nd stage dealers. On further scrutiny, it was found that the inputs covered under the invoices were not purchased by the assessee from the said dealers who had issued the invoices. In the instant case, the assessee placed their order to M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the ground that the invoice issued by 1st/2nd stage dealer was not based on the order placed on the dealer but to an intermedia namely M/s. Darmin Steel Suppliers. This view is taken on the ground that the goods were being received under the delivery challans and commercial invoices of M/s. Darmin Steel Suppliers and payments were also made only to them. On the ground that no payment was made to the 1st/2nd stage dealer and the M/s. Darmin Steel Suppliers had issued delivery challans and invoices, credit has been denied. It was submitted by the learned advocate that the invoices show the appellant as a consignee and the name of the buyer as M/s. Darmin Steel Suppliers. It is not the case of the department that the goods were not receive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the Board which covers situations like this is applicable to the present case also. Even though rules have undergone modifications, the principles underlying availment of cenvat credit remain the same. Therefore this circular issued by the Board is applicable to the present case. We find in the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Mahadev Industries reported in 2000 (115) ELT 452 (Tri.), this Tribunal had taken a view that ownership of inputs is not a requirement of law. But in this case there is no dispute that appellants did purchase the goods and there is absolutely no evidence to show that even one transaction out of several is not genuine and goods have not been received but only bills have been raised. Since there is no evide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
