9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 637X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st stage dealer to the appellant. Regarding consignment note since the service tax on transportation was paid by the appellant that itself establish the transportation of the goods. Merely because consignment note was not produced, it cannot be said that the goods were not transported. Since the entire case is on the basis of one transaction between the manufacturer and the first stage dealer which is not relevant with the appellant, any evidence of that transaction cannot be used against the appellant, particularly, when no tangible evidence was unearthed in the transaction between the dealer M/s Good Luck Empire and the appellant - The payment for the supplies was made through cheques which were recorded in the ledger of both M/s Good ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... since the goods were not transported from manufacturer to the first stage dealer. There is no supply of goods from the first stage dealer to the appellant. On this basis, credit in respect of 7 consignment was disallowed and the same was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, the present appeal by the appellant s company as well as by Shri Rakesh Chaturvedi, Director of the appellant s company. 2. Shri Willingdon Christian, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant made the following submission: 2. The total amount of CENVAT credit of ₹ 5,28,118/- was availed by the Appellant in respect of the following 7 invoices issued by M/s Good Luck. The corresponding details of supplies from the original manufacturers a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11/27.4.2007 Details not available -- -- 6 71/28.4.2007 GJ-2U-8849 12/27.4.2007 GJ-1-AU-3854 (as per impugned SCN) -- -- 7 72/28.4.2007 GJ-2X-1646 13/27.4.2007 Details not available -- -- 3. There are absolutely no discrepancies in 6 consignments out of the above 7 consignments. The only discrepancy found is in respect of consignments as Sr. 6 where it is alleged that the Vehicle No. GJ-1- AU-3854 purportedly used as transport veh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncy with regard to: a) Invoices issued by M/s Goodluck to the Appellant b)Transportation of goods by M/s Good Luck to the Appellant s Factory in 7 different trucks-consignment-wise. c) 6 Invoices of two manufacturers, namely, M/s Tribhuvan and M/s Gyscoal Alloys Ltd. d) No enquiry was made with the transporters or with registered dealer M/s Good Luck or with the two manufacturers, M/s Tribhuvan and M/s Gyscoal Alloys Ltd. 7. Therefore, the Department cannot deny the Cenvat Credit on the flimsy and tenuous ground that the Appellant failed to submit the evidence such as toll receipts, weighing slip,etc. In any case, since the Appellants had installed their own weighbridge in their factory, they did not weight the inpu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the part of M/s Tribhuvan, the Appellant admittedly was not a party to the fraud. In this context, the Appellants rely upon the judgment of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in case of Prayagraj Dyeing Printing Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. UOI reported in 2013 (290) ELT 61 (Guj.) 4. On the other hand, Shri S.N. Gohil, Ld. Supdt. (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the finding of the impugned order. He submits that the appellant could not produce the copy of the consignment note, toll receipt, etc. Accordingly, could not prove the transportation of the goods to the appellant. Therefore, the impugned order is in order which does not require any interference. 5. I have carefully considered the submission made by both the sides and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dger of both M/s Good Luck Empire and the appellant. The receipts of inputs were entered in the Cenvat registers such as RG23A Part I and Part II. Despite the visit of the officers to the appellant s factory, no discrepancy was noticed. Therefore, I do not find any reason to deny the Cenvat Credit. The only the evidence which is not related to the appellant is the statement of the transporter which is not respect of the transportation of the goods to the appellant cannot be used against the appellant. In this fact, there is no evidence to conclude that the appellant have availed Cenvat credit without receipt of inputs. Since I decide the appeal on the facts of the case, I am not going into the aspect of limitation. Therefore, I set aside th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
