9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 508X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sh. N.K. Sharma, Advocate- for the appellant Shri. H. Singh AR- for the respondent ORDER The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the cenvat credit has been denied consequently, the duty has been demanded on the basis that the second stage dealer has not supplied the goods and issued only invoices. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the DGCEI conducted investigation at the end of the second stage dealer M/s Ayushi Steels Company Pvt. Ltd. that they are only issuing cenvatable invoices to avail inadmissible cenvat credit on the strength of invoice issued by them. Thereafter, the factory of the appellant was also visited and Sh. Parmod Kumar, Authorized Signatory stated that they were procured s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also relied on the decision in the case of Motabhai Iron and Steel Industries reported in 2015 (316) ELT 374 (Guj.) to say that cenvat credit cannot be denied to the appellant as no investigation has been conducted at the consignors place, where the goods are alleged to have been supplied. Therefore, he prayed that impugned order is to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, the Ld. AR drew my attention to the statement of Shri. Rupesh Bansal and Shri. Parmod Kumar, Authorized Representative of the appellant to say that as it is admission on the part of Sh. Parmod Kumar that they have received invoices to avail inadmissible cenvat credit and the cenvat credit has been reversed. In that circumstances, the impugned order is to be upheld. 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal dropped the charge of inadmissible cenvat credit availed by them. I have seen that the decision in the case of M/s EP Electro Pressing Pvt. Ltd. (Supra). In the said case there was no admission on the part of the manufacture/ buyer of invoice from Shri. Rupesh Bansal that they have not received the goods. In fact, they have stated that they physically received the goods against the invoice issued by the dealer, therefore, in those set of facts the charges were dropped but the said facts are not applicable to the facts of this case. Further, in the case of Super Trading Company (Supra), Shri. Amit Kumar, Proprietor of the company had stated that they have received the goods from M/s Ayushi Steels Company Pvt. Ltd. which were being t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
