9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 478X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Revenue. - E/8625/16-Mum - A/91632/2017 - Dated:- 19-12-2017 - Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Shri Ahibaran, Additional Commissioner (AR), for appellant None for respondent ORDER This appeal is filed by the Revenue against order-in-appeal No.NGP/EXCUS/000/APPL/897-898/15-16 dated 18.2.2016. 2. None appeared on behalf of the respondent despite notice. Since the matter lies in a short compass, the appeal is taken up for disposal even in the absence of any representation from the respondent. 3. The brief facts that arise for appeal is the respondent herein had availed cenvat credit of an amount of ₹ 36,52,368/- during the period January 2011 to May 2011 on the invoices issued by one M/s. Ravi Steel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d of ₹ 36,52,368/- is inadmissible. (ii) As per the provisions of Rule 9(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, burden of proof regarding duty paid character of the inputs is on the person who is availing the credit and it is on record that Ravi Steel Industries had not discharged this duty liability for the period January 2011 to May 2011. Hence the cenvat credit availed is incorrect. (iii) The inputs have not been received by respondent No.1 and the goods were not all brought to the factory as the transaction remained only on paper to avail illegal credit. (iv) The respondent is working under self assessment procedure as per Rule 9(5) and they should have verified whether Ravi Steel Industries has discharged the duty li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the respondent No.1, Nilesh Steel Alloys Pvt. Ltd., had not received the goods in the factory premises. It was the argument of the learned departmental representative that the said show cause notice talks about receipt of duty paid inputs. I find that the first appellate authority after going through the relevant provisions of Rule 3 and Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and the judgments in the case of Bhawani Castings Ltd. - 2006 (200) ELT 540 (Tri.-Delhi), Hiren Aluminium Ltd. - 2009 (245) ELT 386 (Tri.-Ahmd) and TST Pipes Ltd. - 2014 (309) ELT 560 (Tri.-Del.), recorded the following factual findings which are reproduced below:- 57. Moreover, no other shortages etc. has been proved by the Department against the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
