9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 606X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... instant case, The appellant have not produced any document whatsoever like gate register, LR, Transport document or any other regarding in terms of Rule 9(5) to establish that the goods were indeed receipt in the factory and used in the manufacture of finished goods. In such circumstances, revenue has every right to question the actual receipt of goods and in terms of Rule 9(5) of CCR, the burden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been purchased by the appellant. It was alleged that the particulars such as time and date of removal, mode of transport, vehicle registration no., rate of duty, LR no., challan no. and date etc. were not incorporated in the said invoice. It was also alleged that in the LR the name of the consignee Sur Logistics instead of the appellant s name. Moreover, the RG23D register entry number by which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted out that the same were in the name of Sur Logistics and not in the appellants name. He further pointed out that all lorry receipts were issued on 31.12.2008 whereas the invoice submitted is 10.01.2009. He further pointed out that details as regard RG23D entry no. were also not mentioned. He further pointed out that on enquiry it was pointed out that Sur Logistics in whose name the invoices ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tilised, the person from whom the input or capital goods have been procured is recorded and the burden of proof regarding the admissibility of the CENVAT credit shall lie upon the manufacturer or provider of output service taking such credit. 6. In the ordinary course of circumstances, where a proper invoice is produced and proof of payment along with gate register and Form 4 is presented the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
