2017 (3) TMI 1149

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... g documents - Held that: - denial of credit on the basis of certain discrepancies in the invoices especially when the Revenue is not disputing the receipt of inputs and their duty paid character, cannot be upheld - In any case the appellant have also got the defects removed and have rectified the defects in which case the procedural lapse if any, have also been smoothened. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Ms Rinki Arora, and Shri Kumar Vikram, Advocates for the Appellants Shri S Nunthuk, AR for the Respondent ORDER After hearing both the sides, duly represented by Ms Rinki Arora, and Shri Kumar Vikram, learned advocates appearing for the appellant and Shri S Nunthuk, learned DR app .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... egorical stand that the allegations of clandestine removal of the goods cannot be based upon the visit of sales tax officer and the excess detected by them inasmuch the said excesses was removed by them without actual weighment of the goods and that they would be filing the review petition before the competent authority against the order of sales tax authorities. As regards the credit, they submitted that inasmuch as the inputs have actually been received by them and there is no doubt about the same, denial of credit was not justified. They also submitted the rectified invoices. 3. The appellants stand was not accepted by the lower authorities who confirmed the demands and imposition of penalties. 4. Learned advocate appearing for the app .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r were not duty paid. In any case, the said defects stand rectified and the rectified invoices had been produced before the Assistant Commissioner for regularization of the purchase invoices. 5. As regards the confirmation of demand on the basis of clandestine removal, I find that the lower authorities have gone by the sole fact of detection by the sales tax officers. There is no independent investigation by the Central Excise officers leading to the fact of clandestine manufacture and the removal of the final product. As per various decisions referred supra, the information available with the other tax authorities cannot be adopted by the Central Excise authorities to support their allegation of clandestine activities. In any case, the ap .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X