9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1644X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manufacture of the final product. Investigations also could not identify the finished goods by the appellant. The investigation has not been conducted in a manner so as prove the availment of ineligible Cenvat credit on the basis of invoices only, without receipt of the goods. We also find that as the manufacturer of the goods appellant has taken a due care and has received the good at the strength of invoice and payment of duty. Also, Driver of the truck was transported the goods has not been examined by the adjudicating authority and subjected to cross examination by the appellant. This also is against the provisions of Section 9(D)(i) of the Central Excise Act. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeal No. 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay 2004 to March 2015 for the aforesaid amount, in contravention of the provisions of Rule 2(k)(i), Rule 3(i), 4(i) and Rule 9(1), 9(v) of Credit Rules read with Rule 4 and 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 (for short Excise Rules). Accordingly, Show Cause Notice proposed to recover the same under the provisions of Excise Act under Section 11A(4), along with interest under Section 11(AA) of the Act. Also, the appellant themselves have made liable for penalty as per Rule 15(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules read with Rule 25 of the Excise Rules and Section 11AC of the Excise Act. 3. Pursuant to the direction received from the Central Excise Intelligence, New Delhi, the officers of the Central Excise, Jaipur carried out investiga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... placing reliance on the following decisions: (i) Jindal Drugs Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India 2016 (340) ELT 67 (P H); (ii) Manek Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India 2016 (334) ELT 302 (Guj.); (iii) Goyal Tobacco Co. Pvt. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Service, Jaipur-I 2017 (348) ELT 720 (Tri.-Del.): 4.1 Learned Advocate submits that there is no evidence regarding receipt of any cash by the appellant from the dealers out of the payment made to them for the purchase of inputs/raw material, which was through banking channel and payment was made through the account payee cheques. It is also argued that there is no proof regarding the purchase of other goods/raw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lved - Rule 3 ibid. 4.3 Further he has submitted that the issue regarding the availment of Cenvat credit by the firm floated by Shri Amit Gupta had been the subject matter of the various adjudication proceedings in case of other manufacturers, who has availed Cenvat credit. Some of these case are as under : Sr. No. Final Order/Order-in-Appeal No. Name of the Appellant 1 51356, 51357, 51377-78/2017, E/51638-39, 51830/2017, E/5031/2018 dated 11.5.2018 read with Misc. Order No. 50315 dated 21.5.2018 (CESTAT, Delhi Multimetals Ltd., Kota ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have only provide cenvatable invoice to the appellant without actual supply of the goods. However, from the case record, we find that the appellant has made payment for supply through the banking channels. The appellant has also asked for cross examination of Shri Amit Gupta and Shri Maggu which was denied by the adjudicating authority, which is in contravention of the provisions of Section 9(D) of the Excise Act as has held in the various case laws as mentioned in para 4 of above. We, therefore, find that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Further, the department has not taken any step to link the transaction with the supply of other raw materials required for the manufacture of the final product. Investigations als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpanying the goods, has been paid. Admittedly, in the present case, the assessee was a bona fide purchaser of the goods for a price which included the duty element and payment was made by cheque. The assessee had received the inputs which were entered in the statutory records maintained by the assessee. The goods were demonstrated to have travelled to the premises of the assessee under the cover of Form 31 issued by the Trade Tax Department, and the ledger account as well as the statutory records establish the receipt of the goods. In such a situation, it would be impractical to require the assessee to go behind the records maintained by the first stage dealer. The assessee, in the present case, was found to have duly acted with all reasona ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
