9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 539X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upta was inconclusive and it could not be relied upon. So far as the demand of Rs. 1,75,350/- is concerned, it has been observed that the said demand had been confirmed on the basis of statement made by G.C. Arya of M/s APPL. However, no cross-examination of G.C. Arya was granted to the assessee. Therefore, statement made by G.C. Arya had no relevance to deny Cenvat credit to the assessee. With these observations, demand of Rs. 1,75,350/- was set aside. However, demand of Rs. 1,01,048/- was confirmed on the ground that the vehicle, which had been mentioned in the invoices were not capable of transportation of goods in question, as the same were not tankers - Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to dispute the fact that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are that respondent-M/s Nandan Auto Tech Ltd. is a forging unit manufacturing alloy/non alloy steel forgings machined/un-machined flanges (pipe fittings) etc. Consequent upon an information that the respondent was availing Cenvat Credit on raw material and furnace oil etc. without actual receipt of the said inputs, the factory premises of the respondent was searched by DGCEI on 28.02.2003. During search, as per record seized, it was revealed that the goods worth Rs. 58.11 Lakhs (raw materials and finished goods) were not accounted for in their record. A show cause notice for the seizure part was issued on 20.02.2004. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 12.07.2006 (Annexure A-1) was issued on the basis of search conducted and documents ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3) allowed the appeal filed by the respondent-assessee and reduced the demand from Rs. 3,73,537/- to Rs. 1,01,048/-. However, the appeal filed by the department was dismissed. The revenue-department has now come up in appeal against the order dated 14.03.2018 (Annexure A-3) passed by the Tribunal. Vide impugned order, the Tribunal has observed that M/s Nandan Auto Tech Ltd. had produced certificate issued by the Excise and Taxation Officer, Ludhiana, certifying that the assessee had received the material on each and every one of the disputed invoices. The department had not challenged the said certificate. Rather, the said certificate was verified by the Excise and Taxation Officer, Ludhiana, who had confirmed that the certificate was du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt has not been able to dispute the fact that the certificate was issued by the Excise and Taxation Officer, certifying that the assessee had received the material on each and every one of the disputed invoices. Once, such certificate had been issued, the benefit of Cenvat Credit cannot be denied to the assessee-respondent. Moreover, in para 3.70 of the order dated 22.09.2008 (Annexure A-2), the adjudicating authority has observed as under:- 3.70 There are infact, certain circumstantial evidences, which indicate that the noticee had indeed purchased and consumed FO/LDO. There is an assessment order by sales tax authorites certifying receipt of FO/LDO by the noticee. There is proof of payment through banking channels in lieu of purchase ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
