9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 279X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds are received in the factory of the person taken credit - In these circumstances, when the revenue has clearly shown that the vehicles in which the goods are alleged to have been transported are incapable of carrying such material then the Revenue has discharged its liability and onus is on the person taking credit. The impugned orders wrongly puts onus of establishing non-receipt of inputs on the Revenue - the impugned order has failed to examine the said issue properly - matter is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the issue afresh. - E/87152/15 - A/89797/17/SMB - Dated:- 28-9-2017 - Mr. Raju, Member (Technical) Shri. H. M. Dixit, Asst. Comm. (AR) for appellant Shri. Jayant Kumar, Advocate for respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... les, 2004, the appellants are required to maintain proper record for receipt, disposal, consumption and inventory of the input and capital goods. He argued that in the facts of the case the onus of establishing that the goods were received is on the respondents. He argued that on the basis of RTO report, the investigation has established that the goods were never received by the appellant. He argued that most of the vehicles on which the said goods are claimed to have been transported are incapable of carrying such materials. He pointed out that some of the vehicles are motor cycles, Luna TFR, TATA tanker, Hero Honda, etc. He further argued that denial of credit does not result in double jeopardy as credit can only be availed if the duty ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ravi Steel Industries has not paid tax is also not under dispute. The respondents are essentially harping on the proceedings in respect of show-cause notice demanding duty from M/s.Ravi Steel Industries, their supplier. It is seen that the investigation in the case of Ravi Steel Industries were conducted by the Nagpur Commissionerate. The proceedings against the appellant conducted by Aurangabad Commissionerate. The invoices in respect of which the appellants are involved in both the case are identical and the same. It is seen that the notice issued by the Nagpur Commissionerate did not have the benefit of data regarding vehicles used for transport of such inputs. No investigation regarding receipt of goods was conducted by the said Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
