9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1235X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to prove that these inputs have been diverted by the appellant M/s.Tharaj in the market and procured bazaar scrap from the open market. As the Revenue has not come with any evidence on record to show that the goods have been substituted by bazaar scrap, the allegation against appellant is not sustainable. As the Revenue has failed to bring on record any cogent evidence in support of their allegation, therefore, the allegation that the goods in question cannot be the inputs for the appellant M/s.Tharaj for manufacture of their final product is not sustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/58075,58330,58441,58574-58575,58681, E/58834-58838,58859/2013 - FINAL ORDER NO. 63607-63618/2018 - Dated:- 6-12-2018 - Mr. As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inputs from the supplier and have been used in the manufacture for their final products being castings and auto parts. In continuation of the investigation, the statements of various suppliers were also recorded who stated that they have supplied the goods to M/s.Tharaj against invoices and received the payment through account payee cheque. The Revenue entertained a view that as the goods in question apart from waste and scrap are prime quality product cannot be the inputs for the appellant M/s.Tharaj for manufacture of their final products, therefore, the show cause notice dt.20.4.2012 was issued to the appellants for the period 1.4.2007 to 31.8.2011 to deny Cenvat credit on the goods in question and to impose penalty on M/s. Tharaj as we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of total purchases of 49939.433 MT which was worked out to 6.14% of total purchases, which is negligible quantity. 4. He further submits that all the suppliers have deposed that they have supplied the goods in question to the appellant M/s.Tharaj and M/s.Tharaj stated that they have received the said goods in their factory. The Revenue has not come with any positive evidence to show how the goods in question have been diverted from their factory. Moreover, how the scrap was received by the appellant. No investigation was conducted at the end of the transporter to prove the allegation alleged in the show cause notice. It is a fact that these inputs have been received by the appellant and the same has been used in the manufacture and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... conducted at the end of the transporter by the Revenue to prove that the goods have not been received by the appellant in their factory. Moreover, no investigation was conducted to prove that these inputs have been diverted by the appellant M/s.Tharaj in the market and procured bazaar scrap from the open market. As the Revenue has not come with any evidence on record to show that the goods have been substituted by bazaar scrap, the allegation against appellant is not sustainable as it is based on assumption and presumption without bringing any cogent evidence on record. Moreover, the appellant has shown that the said goods in question have been used to manufacture SG castings and auto parts which have been cleared at higher price. In that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
