9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1504X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S.K. Garg & Sons which were accepted by the department - in the absence of any corroborative evidence to show that the respondents have not received the goods, it cannot be alleged against the respondents that they have received the invoices and not the goods merely on the ground that there was not storage facility specifically when the landlord made a statement that the godown was let out to the dealer - the cenvat credit cannot be denied to the respondents - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - E/2936/2012-(SM) - A/60362/2017-SM[BR] - Dated:- 6-3-2017 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Shri Satyapal, AR for the appellant None for the respondent ORDER Per Ashok Jindal The Revenue has filed this appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngwith interest and penalty was sought to be imposed. The matter was adjudicated, cenvat credit was denied consequently duty was demanded alongwith interest and equal amount of penalty. On appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals), who has allowed the cenvat credit to the respondent holding that the credit has been taken on the basis of specified documents showing all particulars required to be given under the law and co-relatable with the duty paying documents issued by the manufacturer of the goods. Aggrieved from the said order, the Revenue is before me. 3. Learned AR submits that in this case the Preventive Officers of the Central Excise department visited the premises of M/s S.K. Garg Sons on 13.08.2007 and it was found that M/s S.K. G ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... annot be denied. In support of their contention ld. Counsel also relied on the decision of CCE, Ludhiana Vs. Dhawan Steel Industries- 2015 (324) ELT 169 ( Tri. Del.). 5. Heard the parties and considered the submissions. 6. I find that in the matter in hand no investigation conducted at the end of manufacturer/supplier or the transporter to reveal the truth whether manufacturer/supplier has supplied the goods in question to M/s S.K. Garg Sons or the transporter has transported the goods to the premises of the respondents which is vital evidence to reveal the truth. Further, M/s S.K. Garg Sons was registered dealer during the impugned period and all the ER-1 returns were filed by M/s S.K. Garg Sons which were accepted by the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n has not been supported with tangible evidence. Therefore, learned commissioner (Appeals) has rightly set aside the proceedings against the respondents. In these circumstances, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order and same is uphel. Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. 7. Therefore, relying on the precedent decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Dhawan Steel Industries (Supra) and M/s Jain Steel Tubes and other vide order No.96-102/16 CHD dated 11.02.16 as discussed above, I hold that in the absence of any investigation at the end of manufacturer/supplier or the transporter, the cenvat credit cannot be denied to the respondents. Therefore, impugned order upheld set aside and the appeal filed by the Revenue is di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
