9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 1007X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decision involving distinguishable facts, in as much as, though the issue may look similar, but the charges and evidence in the subject notice are different. The inputs have not at all been transported from Delhi to the Factory of Respondent or the factory of the Job Workers in trucks shown in LRs. The Adjudicating authority failed to appreciate the detailed investigation which was also extended to the Road Transport Authorities/RTOs and Check Post of Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat. In order to ascertain as to whether M/s Singal Road Carriers had actually transported the consignments, the reports received from RTOs revealed that some of the vehicle number mentioned in seized LRs were government vehicle, Auto-Rickshaws, Pick-up Vans, Mahindra Load Carriers etc, which were not capable for transportation of goods. Respondent could not produce the original LRs and not proved as to how the consignments reached their factory. Shri Subham Chandra Sharma, Manager of M/s Singal Road Carriers, in his statement admitted that imported Copper Ingots/ Copper Wire bars as mentioned in LRs were not transported and they had prepared LRs only. During the investigation the statements of perso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the basis of third party statement or records, the demand for denial of cenvat Credit cannot be sustained. The Respondent preparing Job-Work Challan and entries also made in Job Work Register (Annexure- IV Register). The Records maintained by the Job-worker were also produced before the investigating officers, no discrepancy has been found at the Job Worker's premises. The Respondent entered the disputed inputs in their RG23A Part-I & Part II and also shown the consumption of the same for manufacture of the final products. The consideration for the disputed inputs was paid through cheques and freight payments were made through cheque or vouchers. There is no evidence brought forth on record to show as how the huge quantity of the disputed inputs has been disposed off clandestinely and how and from which sources the substituted inputs were procured. Case of the department is mainly on recorded statements of few transporters. The statements were retracted or contradicted during cross examination of the Deponents. Mere third party evidence like Transporter's statements, RTO Reports, Check Post Records, etc cannot suffice to prove the department's case about non-receipts of the inpu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppliers of alleged buyers therefore, the alleged clandestine disposal of the disputed input remains unsubstantiated. As regard the allegation of the department about the substitution of the disputed inputs by scrap procured from market, there is no evidence showing details as to any single supplier of alleged substituted scrap or about transportation thereof, or any financial transaction with the alleged suppliers of the substituted scrap. This shows that the department's case of clandestine disposal of the disputed inputs and its substitution by procurement of scrap has no support of any evidence. There is no dispute that the entire quantity of copper inputs which was disputed by the department has been physically cleared from the various manufacturers factories at Jammu on payment of excise duty under valid Central Excise Invoice or this is not a case of fake invoices. In this case, huge quantity of 303MT of Copper inputs duly suffered duty and transported from the respective manufacturer's factory and duly accompanied by valid Central Excise Invoices, delivery challans, lorry receipts, etc. 5.3 Now the case of the revenue is as discussed above based on some evidences such as RT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of raw material and finished goods particularly without any indication of presence of non-duty paid copper inputs or absence of duty paid copper inputs. Shri Kamil Vasi, Director of the company in his statement repeatedly stated the fact of receipt and delivery of disputed copper inputs at job worker's premises. He also confirmed receipt of invoices and LRs of the copper inputs through truck drivers. Shri Atul N Sharma, In-charge, Singal's Office, Ahmedabad in cross-examination before the Commissioner stated that they have transported the ingots and delivered to M/s. TAHA as door delivery and received all transportation payments through cheques. It is also not in dispute that any movement of the goods to the job-worker they prepare records and maintained on regular basis showing various details like Date, variety, weight of incoming copper ingots of the respondent in its factory and similar particulars of job worked copper rods returned to the respondent with burning loss quantity, challan number, etc. are the documentary evidences of receipt of ingots at job worker's place on behalf of the respondent. 5.5 The master chart showing material balance of 33 consignments of ingots pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ods and delivery of the same, c) There is alternate route, wherein Shamlaji Check post his by passed and d) They received all the payments from M/s Taha by cheque. On the basis of above retraction and clarification about the transportation, It is clear that the goods have been transported to the respondent's job worker's premises. Complete set of transport documents found retrieved from department's CDs were available comprising of invoices, LR's of two stages of transportation, with endorsement of handing/taking over of goods at Motikhan , New Delhi, letters of appellant for effecting door delivery at job worker's factory along with larger number of toll receipts of trucks while travelling from Delhi to Gujarat. The said documents evidence:- A) All ingots were duty paid. B) Transportation from Jammu to Gujarat took place in two stages under two LR's C) Movement of truck from Delhi to Gujarat confirmed from the toll receipts. D) Door delivery of ingots to job worker's factory was done as per the respondent's instruction. Thus, it is evident that except for the evidence in the form of records, statements of transporter's employee and check post records, the department ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... neous goods" to parties in & around Ahmedabad; but no entry of delivery of copper, shown to have carried together as in 10 trucks of the Respondent's present case, out of total 34. 5.9 In the present case in fact there are 7 suppliers of disputed inputs namely: a) M/s Vaishno Metals b) M/s Kashmir Wires c) M/s Viraj Industries d) M/s V.M.I. Industries e) M/s V. K. Metal f) M/s Jain Metal g) M/s Shivgiri Metal But it is an admitted fact that the investigating officers have not enquired or investigated even a single supplier as regard actual supply of disputed inputs or as regard payment received by them for the value of disputed inputs. This is very vital to establish that the duty paid goods have not been transported to the respondent but diverted somewhere else. We are therefore of the view that the department could not prove their case summarily on the following points: (1) There is not a single statement of any supplier to the effect that the disputed inputs were not supplied to the respondent and supplied to a third party. (2) There is no evidence that some third party have made payment to the supplier of the disputed inputs. (3) The statements of the transpo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
