9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (3) TMI 153X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it Gupta , C.A. , for the Appellant. Shri Ajay Saxena, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order] - Heard both the sides and perused the records. 2. The issue involved in the instant appeal relates to the disallowance of the Cenvat credit on ten invoices. 3. In relation to four invoices from Sr. No. 5 to 8 of the Annexure to the show cause notice, the Cenvat credit was proposed to be disallowed on the ground that the invoices were consigned to M/s. Raymond Ltd. and credit taken on samples. The Assistant Commissioner, in his findings, held that no documents were submitted to prove that the inputs were received in the factory and there is no explanation in which circumstances inputs pertaining to such documents have been received i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice, the Cenvat credit was proposed to be disallowed on the ground that the invoices consigned to M/s. Durham Spintex and Holdings, Ahmedabad were endorsed to the appellants whereas no such provision in excise exists to endorse the invoice. The Assistant Commissioner, in his findings, has held that the receipt of the inputs is not established on the basis of the documentary evidence and hence the appellants are not entitled to the Cenvat credit in respect of endorsed documents. This has been upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). 4.1 I find that the excise law does not provide for availment of credit on the basis of the endorsed invoices. Therefore, the credit taken on the invalid documents is not permissible. Hence, the credit has b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (the impugned invoices are all dated much prior to 28-9-2004). They stated that it became mandatory only with effect from 28-9-2004 by virtue of Notification No 27/2004-CE (NT) dated 28-9-2004. They, therefore, maintained that the Cenvat credit is rightly taken by them, when the receipt and use of input in the factory is not disputed in the show cause notice. 6.1 The plea of the appellants is not acceptable. Firstly, because the impugned invoices are consigned to third parties. The consignee's names are mentioned in the invoices and these consignees are surely not the appellants. Further, the receipt of the inputs in the factory has been disputed in the findings of the lower authorities. 7. Imposition of the penalty and the demand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
