9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1095X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere filed by M/s. S.K. Garg & Sons which were accepted by the department. In the absence of any corroborative evidence to show that the appellant have not received the goods, it cannot be alleged against the appellant that they have received the invoices and not the goods merely on the ground that there was no storage facility specifically when the landlord made a statement that the godown was let out to the dealer - In the absence of any investigation at the end of manufacturer/supplier or the transporter, the Cenvat credit cannot be denied to the appellant. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/60472/2018 - FINAL ORDER NO. 62605 /2018 - Dated:- 3-8-2018 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Present for the Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y Cenvat credit on inputs procured on the strength of the invoices issued by M/s. S.K. Garg Sons. Consequently, duty was proposed to be demanded along with interest and penalty was sought to be imposed. The matter was adjudicated, Cenvat credit was denied, consequently duty was demanded along with interest and equal amount of penalty. Aggrieved from the said order, the appellant is before me. 3. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that there is no inculpatory statement of the appellant. In fact, the appellant have stated that they have physically received the goods on invoices and said goods have been used in manufacture of the final goods. Therefore, Cenvat credit cannot be denied. It is also submitted that no inv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in that circumstance, Cenvat credit is rightly disallowed. 5. Heard the parties and considered the submissions. 6. I find that in the matter in hand no investigation conducted at the end of manufacturer/supplier or the transporter to reveal the truth whether manufacturer/supplier has supplied the goods in question to M/s. S.K. Garg Sons or the transporter has transported the goods to the premises of the appellants which is vital evidence to reveal the truth. Further, M/s. S.K. Garg Sons was registered dealer during the impugned period and all the ER-1 returns were filed by M/s. S.K. Garg Sons which were accepted by the department. Therefore, in the absence of any corroborative evidence to show that the appellant have not receive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the proceedings against the respondents. In these circumstances, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order and same is upheld. Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. 7. The same issue came up before this Tribunal in the case of Sadhashiv Casting Pvt. Ltd. vide Final Order No. 233/2016-CHD, dated 23-3-2016, wherein this Tribunal relying on the precedent decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Dhawan Steel Industries (supra) and M/s. Jain Steel Tubes and other vide Order Nos. 96- 102/16 CHD, dated 11-2-2016 as discussed above, I hold that in the absence of any investigation at the end of manufacturer/supplier or the transporter, the Cenvat credit cannot be denied to the appellant. 8. In view of the above observations ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
