9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 695X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e manufacture of their final product, were not actually received by the appellants. The appellants received the goods in their factory under cover of the Central Excise invoices issued by M/s.Industrial Associates. The concerned staff at the factory gate puts the receipt seal under his initial and affected a consolidated entry in Form-IV Register for the receipt of said inputs along with other inputs of analogous character. The credit availed by them were duly reflected in their monthly ER-I returns. They also received tax-invoice-cum-challan along with original for buyer copy of the excise invoices for inputs received from the said manufacturer. The amounts were paid by them by account payee cheques/RTGS. VAT were also reflected in the invoices raised by the said company. The transportation costs were paid by them to the vehicle drivers/owners under the cash vouchers. The appellants have admittedly manufactured their final product by using the said inputs and the final products stands cleared by them on payment of duty. The final product cannot be manufactured out of nothing and obviously requires inputs. There is no iota of evidence produced by the Revenue to reflect upon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 18 was ₹ 50.00 Lakhs. It appears that this fact was not brought before the Hon ble High Court by the Counsels, who appeared on behalf of the department. Either they were not apprised by the department (the appellant before the Hon ble High Court), about the Circulars, issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs from time to time, for reduction in litigation before the Tribunal, High Courts and Supreme Court, where the limits have been enhanced from time to time and in the present case the enhanced limit was ₹ 50.00 Lakhs for preferring an appeal before the Hon ble High Court and the present case being within ₹ 50.00 Lakhs, did not qualify for preferring the appeal against the Tribunal s order before the Hon ble High Court or they chose not to bring these facts before the Hon ble High Court. Since the respondent assessees were not represented before the High Court, otherwise these facts could have been brought by them. With this attitude of the officers concerned, the entire purpose of the Government s intention in reduction of litigation, which has been initiated by issuance of Circulars for reduction of litigation before the Tribunal, High Court and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d no infrastructure were to be considered, it would make no difference to the matter in hand. He further submitted that the appellant had duly discharged duty on the goods received and used the same in the manufacture of their final product. He also submitted that the receipt of goods had been recorded by the appellant in their statutory records, which were also submitted before the adjudicating authority. 6. The learned Counsel also submits that in all the above instances the goods were duly recorded in their statutory books and were duly consumed in production. That their financial ledger for the period shows the transaction duly recorded. The payment was made through regular banking channels and nothing discriminating has been found. That nothing contrary has been found from their unit and the third party statements and records i.e. transporter cannot be relied upon. He relied upon the decision of Tribunal in the case of Emmtex Synthetics v. CCE, New Delhi - 2002 (147) E.L.T. 649 to contend that uncorroborated, uncross-examined and records of another person cannot be relied upon. He further relied upon the Tribunal s decision in the case of CCE, Ludhiana v. Pee Jay Internatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tral Excise Act, 1944. M/s.Gontermman Peipers (India) Ltd. Vs. CCE-Kol-VIII (Order No.77772 to 77773/2017 dated 08.11.2017) is relied upon wherein such issue has been elaborately dealt with. Accordingly, the statement of Shri Subhas Biswas, labour of M/s.Industrial Associates is not of any evidentiary value. (Page 26-27 of the Paperbook). (b) Statement dated 17.12.2009 of Shri Subhas Dhandhania, Transporter Shri Dhandhania inter alia, stated that he did not transport the goods from the factory of M/s.Industrial Associates to their customers. His statement is not specific in as much as the vehicle numbers as mentioned in the invoices for supply of materials to the appellant by M/s. Industrial Associates were transported in the vehicles provided by Shri Dhandhania or not. There is no such specific averment from Shri Dhandhania in his statement nor the department pointed out such infirmities in the matter of transaction between M/s.Industrial Associates with the appellant. Further, the statement of Shri Dhandhania was not subjected to verification under 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Hence, his statement has got no evidentiary value. Regarding the verification of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ber of invoices. In the said invoices, the vehicle numbers were indicated. Enquiries made by the department stated to have revealed that in respect of 4 vehicles and as per the reports from the Regional Transport Authority, the 4 (Nos.) of vehicles were not capable for transporting the goods. In respect of remaining 39 invoices and same number of vehicles, there was no dispute about receipt of the same in their factory. The submissions of the appellant in para XVI of Grounds of Appeal (page 19-20 of Paperbook) is referred to. In respect of 4 vehicles, it was submitted by the appellant that there was every possibility for mistake in writing the registration number of the vehicles in such invoices. The submission of the appellant had been that since there were outstanding evidences in regard to supply and receipt of the materials by the appellant in their factory, mere discrepancy in recording the vehicle s registration number in 4 invoices does not substantiate that the goods were not received by the appellant. It is submitted that there is no dispute about the payments by account payee cheques to the supplier, M/s.Industrial Associates in the present case. Receipt of the mater ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom one M/s.Industrial Associates, which is a registered dealer. Such procurement was on the basis of invoices issued by the said dealer, wherein the particulars were reflected. On the basis of the same, the appellant assessee availed Cenvat credit paid on the said inputs as shown in the invoices. 11. On perusal of records I note that the inputs received by the appellants were duly entered in their RG-23A Part-I for the period from August, 2008 to January, 2009 and such records were subject to scrutiny by their jurisdictional Central Excise Officers and the credits were being availed with the knowledge of the Revenue and by reflecting the inputs in the records. In such a scenario, it is a difficult proposition to come to a finding that all the inputs received by the appellants, which have been utilized in the manufacture of their final product, were not actually received by the appellants. I also note that the appellant s Director Shri N.H.Gupta, in his statement recorded during the investigation, had given a categorical deposition that they have received the supplies of contracted goods under the cover of excise invoices issued under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 si ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that they were engaged into cutting of TMT rods into pieces in their factory of M/s.Industrial Associates during the period in question. Such cutting of TMT rods constitutes of iron and steel, which is the inputs required by the appellants. This fact has not been disputed by the Revenue and reliance is placed only on the statement of the Director and employees laying down that cenvatable inputs were not transported by them. On the other hand, the assessee has brought on record the transaction ledger/voucher showing payments to the concerned drivers. The bank statement stands produced showing the payment to M/s.lIndustrial Associates by Account Payee Cheques. There is no allegation that such cheques were encashed and subsequently refunded to the appellant assessee. 15. Reliance is placed on the decision of the (a) Hon ble Jharkhand High Court in the case of Commr. of C.Ex., East Singhbhum vs. Tata Motors Ltd. [2013 (294) E.L.T. 394 (Jhar.)] wherein the Hon ble High Court has held that it is presumed that when payments were made on the inputs, buyer is entitled to claim Cenvat credit on such inputs. Hon ble High Court further observed that it is unreasonable to accept buyer of su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
