9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 290X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Revenue is not sufficient enough to uphold the charge of nonreceipt of inputs. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Excise Appeals No. 50449-50451 of 2017 (SM) - Final Order No. 51216-51218/2018 - Dated:- 6-4-2018 - Hon ble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member ( Judicial ) Shri H.C. Saini, Authorized Representative (DR) for the appellant Ms. Surabhi Sinha, Advocate for the respondents ORDER Per. Archana Wadhwa Both the appeals filed by the Revenue against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) are being disposed of by a common order as the issue involved is identical. 2. After hearing both the sides, I find that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of mild steel ingots. Certain investigations we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the respondent and which accounts have been audited by Cera as also by internal audit. Monthly returns in the form of ER-1 and ER-6 and the ER-5 returns were duly filed by the respondent and assessed to be corrected by the Range Superintendent. He has also observed that no statement of the Authorized Representative of M/s National Steel Agro Industries Limited were recorded by the Investigating Officers so as to find out the truth of supply of the inputs. The Revenue has merely relied upon certain bilties of the transporters to deny the entire Cenvat credit availed by the assessee for the last number of years. By referring to many precedent decisions, he has observed that Revenue has not shown any alternate source of procurement of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the allegation of availment of credit without actually receiving the inputs cannot be upheld without any evidence produced for alternative source of procurement of raw material. It was further observed that receiving and utilization of raw material shown by the assessee, without which production of final product would not have been possible. 5. In view of the above, I note that the evidence produced by the Revenue is not sufficient enough to uphold the charge of nonreceipt of inputs. In fact, I find that the Hon ble Allahabad High Court decision in the case of CCE ST vs. Juhi Alloys Ltd. reported in 2014 (302) E.L.T. 487 (All.) dealt with an identical issue and held against the Revenue. 6. In view of the foregoing, I find no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
