9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 350X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... justified - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/101/2010-Ex[DB] - A/58053/2017-EX[DB] - Dated:- 23-11-2017 - Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) And Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Mr. Rajesh Rawal, (Advocate) for the Appellant Mr. R.K. Mishra, DR for the Respondent ORDER Per: S.K. Mohanty Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of P.V.C Insulated wires and cables, armoured and un-armoured cables, control cables etc., classifiable under Chapter 39 of the CETA. On 09.06.2006, the Central Excise officers of Anti Evasion, Jaipur-I Commissionerate visited the appellant s factory premises. The said officers recorded the statement of Shri. Ravi Prakash Gu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vide Order-in-Appeal dated 05.02.2009. The ld. Advocate strongly submitted that there is no such allegation during the investigation in 2004. Further, the appellant received the goods from M/s. KPIPL under the cover of Central Excise invoices and paid the Central Excise duty, sales tax. The ld. Advocate drew the attention of the Bench to various documents, evidencing the fact that the goods were received by it. It is further submitted that the Tribunal in an identical set of facts, in a recent decision, in the case of M/s. UKB Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Ors. VS. CCE, Delhi-II, vide Order No.55931-55935/2016 dated 20.12.2016, has allowed the appeal of the assessee. The ld. Advocate submitted written note of submissions alongwith case laws. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... including the appellant herein. 6. The ld. Advocate for the appellant submitted that the entire case was made out on the basis of the statement of the Director and other employees of M/s. KPIPL and the transporters. The Department had ignored the various statutory records and documents, which would establish that the appellant had received the goods and used in the manufacture of final product cleared on payment of duty and duty recorded in the statutory records. It is contended that the invoices would show necessary stampings by check post at the time of crossing of the vehicles carrying the goods from Delhi to Rajasthan. We find that the appellant produced the evidences in support of the contentions that they purchased the inputs and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Commissioner of Central Excise has reason to belief that the cenvat credit availed and utilized is not within the normal limits, having regard to the nature of excisable goods manufactured, he could have directed to examine the accounts and records, as provided under the Central Excise statue. 8. It is noted that in similar situation, the Tribunal in the case of M/s. UKB Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (supra) set aside the order of the original authority in which, cenvat credit was denied on the basis of investigation at M/s. KPIPL. The relevant paragraphs of the said order are reproduced below:- 6. The impugned order disallowed the cenvat credit only on the ground that KPIPL were engaged in issuance of cenvatable invoices for PVC c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t while examining the lack of evidence regarding flow back of money, the Original Authority records that the event happened more than 3-4 years and hence, no evidence could be left behind. However, while examining the admissibility of certain statements of truck drivers recovered 3-4 years back, it is noted that the same is admissible and some of them have stated that they have not delivered any goods to the main appellant from KPIPL. Such divergent approach in appreciating the evidence is not tenable. Further, we note that there is no discussion regarding how could the main appellant manufacture such quantity of final products in the absence of inputs as recorded in their statutory records. Admittedly, during the impugned period, the main ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... When one tanker carrying 16,000 kg. arrived at in the factory, they have mistakenly taken credit for the full quantity mentioned in the bill of entry. However, when the mistake was noticed, the same was reversed and the credit was re-taken only on receipt of the balance quantity of 16 MTS on 25.06.2016. 9. It is noted that the present proceeding was initated on the basis of the same investigation against M/s. KPIPL and the transporter. The ld. DR for the Revenue in his written submission had narrated the various statements of the Director of M/s. KPIPL and the other suppliers of inputs of M/s. KPIPL and their transporters. The appellant requested for cross examination of the concerned persons, which was not allowed. It appears that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
