9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 163X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... found non existence and not capable of transportation of goods are other than tankers. The credit sought to be denied on the basis of GRs issued by M/s.APPL, we find that as the transportation arranged by M/s.APPL i.e. M/s.Amrit Roadlines and the invoices bearing the same number, therefore, on this ground, the credit cannot be denied. In that circumstance, the assessee is required to be a chance to produce the invoices with supporting evidence for availment of credit. Appeal disposed off. - Appeal Nos. E/805 & 1222/2009 - FINAL ORDER NO. 60244-60245/2019 - Dated:- 22-2-2019 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Bijay Kumar, Member (Technical) Present for the Appellant: Shri Kamaljeet Singh, Advocate versa Pres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... overed from the assessee. Central Excise duty of ₹ 39,100/- was demanded on shortage of wire rods allegedly cleared clandestinely and penalty should not be imposed on the assessee for the period January, 2001 to August, 2003. The matter was adjudicated, the Commissioner after taking into account the various evidence produced by the appellant during the course of adjudication confirmed the demand of ₹ 6,08,435/- on account of non receipt of furnace oil and the same is required to be recovered along with interest and penalty of ₹ 6,08,435/- has been imposed on them. Against the said order the assessee is in appeal against the confirmation of demand against the assessee and the Revenue is in appal against the order for droppi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsported any goods to the assessee. The vehicle number mentioned on the invoice of M/s.APPL is that of M/s.Amrit Roadlines only and the transportation was arranged by M/s.APPL and not by the assessee. Therefore, the adjudicating authority has wrongly interpreted the statements and as invoices show the vehicle number is the same. He further submits that reliance placed on the statement of Shri Kamal Gupta, son of the owner of M/s. Gupta Transport Co. wherein he has stated that they have not transported the goods for LOTC. 8. It is his submission that the assessee has received the goods along with each and every invoice of LOTC. The assessee sought cross examination of Shri Kamal Gupta. But Shri Kamal Gupta appeared for cross examination o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ods along with invoices to the assessee. Further, in some cases, the vehicle numbers were different which were not capable of transportation of goods. 12. Heard the parties. 13. We find the main reason to issuance of the show cause notices to denial of the cenvat credit to the assessee is that the transport vehicles are not entered at ICCs, therefore, it was alleged that the assessee has not received the inputs. In some cases, suppliers have admitted that they have not supplied the goods. Moreover, some of the vehicles found non existence and not capable of transportation of goods are other than tankers. 14. A similar issue came up before this Tribunal on the same investigation in the case of M/s Adhunik Alloys Ltd. wherein this Tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relied on the various statements of supplier/transporters and also relied on the statement of Parveen Kumar Garg of M/s LOT initially made on 25.02.2005. This same was retracted by him on from next date 26.02.2005 which was despatched on 28.02.2005 thereafter, various summons have been issued to Sh. Praveen Kumar Garg but Sh. Praveen Kumar Garg never appeared nor the cross examination of Sh. Praveen Kumar Garg was granted in that circumstances, statement of Sh. Praveen Kumar Garg have no evidentially value in the light of the decision in the case of M/s Vishnu Co. Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) wherein the Hon ble High Court Delhi has observed as under: 38. In the present case it needs to be first observed that there was not confession as suc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eceived by the assessee. Therefore, we do not find infirmity with the impugned order wherein it has been observed as under:- 3.76 There are in fact, certain circumstantial evidences which indicate that the notice had indeed purchased and consumed/FO/LDO. There is an assessment order by sales tax authorities certifying receipt of FO/LDO by the notice. There is proof of payment through banking channels in lieu of purchase of FO/LDO. There are Central Excise records which are proof of production and its clearance on payment of Central Excise duty and proof of export of goods manufactured by the notice. Production is not possible without the consumption of FO/LDO. Then there is a report by CBI, who after investigation concluded that the noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
