9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 19X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... VAT-47), and has made the payment by Account Payee cheques, both to the supplier and to the transporter. The oral evidences recorded are not reliable, being in violation of the provisions of Section 9D of the Act. The show cause notice is not maintainable as the same is presumptive and more by way of wild allegation - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeal No.50994/2018 (SM) - Final Order No. 50448/2019 - Dated:- 29-3-2019 - Shri Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) Present Shri Dileep Shivpuri, Advocate for the appellant. Present Shri K. Poddar, DR for the respondent. ORDER Per Anil Choudhary: The issue in this appeal is whether the appellant has wrongly taken cenvat credit on pur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pplier s end, the said M/s. Satabadi Tie-Up Ltd. was found to have been working only on papers i.e. the unit was allegedly issuing only invoices for alleged clearance of excisable goods without any physical clearance, as there was no manufacturing facility found to exist within the said premises. A show cause notice C.No.V(30)33/CE/AE/STUPL/KOL-III/11/PT-1 dated 28.06.2013, in this regard, was also issued to M/s.Shatabadi Tie-Up Pvt. Ltd., by the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-III. 4. The officers of the Anti-Evasion Jaipur-I, on receiving information from the Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-III, visited the factory premises of the assessee on 13.10.2011 and post inspection recorded the statement of Shri J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i J.N. Bhargava, Sr. G.M. of M/s. WMW Metal Fabrics Ltd. 53, Industrial Area, Jhotwara, Jaipur, in his statement dated 3.10.2013 tendered under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 stated that though he had seen the machine parts at the time of their receipt, yet he was not aware of anything written or embossed/mark on the body of the machine parts, on the basis of which the same can be identified with the relevant invoice or with the manufacturer i.e., M/s. Satabadi Tie up (P) Ltd., Kolkata. He had also denied having received any sort of packing list containing any sort of Trade Mark/Number/Name of the manufacturer or any other specification relating to capacity/speed, year of the manufacturer or any other specification relating to c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0000 8200 4100 422300 141450 7. Under the aforementioned facts and on inquiry by the Revenue, it appeared to Revenue that the appellant appears to have not received the capital goods and have taken cenvat credit, which appeared to be not admissible to them. Accordingly, the show cause notice dated 4.7.2014 was issued proposing to demand cenvat credit of ₹ 4,22,300/- including cess with proposal to appropriate the amount already deposited and further, the deposit of interest of ₹ 1,41,450/- through PLA. Further, penalty was proposed under Rule 15 of CCR, 2004 read with Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... machinery. The appellant has also utilized statutory documents viz. waybill form VAT-47 under the State VAT Rules. Such declaration is pre-authenticated document issued by the Sales Tax Department, which is machine serialed and the appellant maintains proper records of the usage of such way bills, which are part of its sales tax records. In the copy of the VAT-47, Invoice No. and date along with the amount, name of transporter, Sl.No. and the truck no. are also mentioned. Further, the name of the consignor along with its Tin no. is mentioned. Further, the supplier of the capital goods has issued proper tax invoice-cum-excise invoice. The supplier is also registered under the Central Excise Provisions. The invoice also contains the various ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11 D of the Act, along with penalty. 10. Having considered the rival contentions, I find that the show cause notice is defective for non-joinder of essential parties. Also there is lack of sufficient evidence by the Revenue. Further, I find that the appellant has discharged its onus as required by them under Rule 9(6) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, as it is an admitted fact that the particular machinery part/capital goods were found available in their factory at the time of inspection. The Revenue has raised the doubt as the said part of Machinery does not have any serial number and manufacturer s name, etc. Further, the appellant has utilized statutory way-bill (Form VAT-47), and has made the payment by Account Payee cheques, both to the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
