9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 1256X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to availment of Cenvat credit on inputs namely, Plastic Granules for the period October 2005 to Dec 2007. 2. For denying the benefit of Cenvat credit of Rs. 15,01,200/- and for imposing equivalent amount of penalty, the grounds in the show cause notice were that investigation was conducted against dealer, of which Shri Mukesh Sangla is the proprietor. M/s Signet Overseas Ltd. is also one of such company, whose director is Shri Mukesh Sangla. During investigation, records were seized and statements were recorded from various persons. Based on the records and statements, it was alleged that the firms owned by Shri Mukesh Sangla issued cenvatable invoices to Appellant firm without actual deliv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t s record. That The cash slips and the laptop seized from the residential premises of Shri Kirti Kala and the records seized from M/s SOL or its associated persons relied upon were not maintained in the regular course of business and were private documents with no connection with the Appellant. The cash transactions shown in the slips and ledger retrieved from the laptop of Kirti Kala cannot be said to be genuine, unless the same is corroborated by the receipts shown in the Books of the Appellant. That Shri Kirti Kala in his statement did not name any person of the Appellant Company who has collected the cash. That no cash was ever dealt with by the Appellant company on account of alleged bogus invoices and no relia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the goods were not delivered in the Appellant s factory and the same were diverted elsewhere. Therefore, the impugned orders confirming the demand based upon the so called ledger and records as well as statements of the persons related with M/s SOL cannot be relied upon to allege that the polymers were not received in the Appellant s factory. 4.3 That statement of Shri Vishal Agarwal, transporter has been relied upon, wherein he stated that he has sold bilty in cash at the rate of Rs. 100/-. However, since the goods were transported by transporters appointed by M/s Haldia and not by M/s BGFL or M/s BBTC owned or operated by Shri Vishal Agarwal, there is no ground to allege non-transportation of the alleged goods.& ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sp; Thus, the duty demand cannot be sustained. He relies upon the following judgments: (i) RINOX ENGINEERING Vs. CCE, CHANDIGARH 2014 (304) ELT 436 (TRI) (ii) CCE, LUDHIANA Vs. PEE JAY INTERNATIONAL LTD. 2010 (255) ELT 418 (TRI DEL) (iii) CCE, LUHIANA Vs. PARMATMA JAT. SINGH ALLOYS P. LTD. 2011 (266) ELT 67 (TRI) (iv) MONARCH METALS P. LTD. Vs. CCE, AHMEDABAD 2000 (261) ELT 508 (TRI AHD) 4.5 He submits that there is no evidence that the cenvat credit was availed without receipt of inputs by Appellant or that the goods from the factory were diverted elsewhere. That the lower authorities failed to appreciate that in the statement the Dire ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctor of M/s Signet Overseas Ltd. I find that the document and data relied upon was maintained mainly by Shri Kirti Kala, Cashier of M/s Signet Overseas Ltd. I find that these records were not maintained by M/s Signet Overseas Ltd. in regular course of business. Further, I find that the documents/ records relied upon by the revenue pertain to M/s Signet Overseas Ltd. have not been corroborated from any independent evidences. The same is nowhere corroborating with any evidence from the Appellant s record or documents. The investigation has not brought any incriminating documents from the Appellant. Though it is alleged that the Appellant firm paid amounts through cheque and in turn took cash from M/s Signet Overseas Ltd., I find t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed as the goods were received in the factory. Thus, I find that there is no inculpatory evidence against the Appellant firm to show that they have availed ineligible credit. 9. I further find that in the similar set of facts, records and investigation, the demands against M/s Narmada Extrusions Ltd., Pithampur were set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 21.02.2013 and the same was not appealed against by the Revenue. Further, in case of other assesses namely, M/s Parag Pentachem and M/s Rajshree Plastiwood, the Order-in-appeal exonerating assesses, though were appealed against by the Revenue, but the appeals were dismissed by the Tribunal vide Final Order No. A/51910-51915/2015 dt. 17.06.2015. In a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
