9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (12) TMI 158X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing any actual sale of the goods – Held that credit is not allowed. - E/1680-1682/2006-SM - 1619-1621/2008-SM(BR)(PB), - Dated:- 10-12-2008 - Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (T) Shri A.K. Rastogi, DR, for the Appellant. Shri Rupender Singh, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order]. - These are the Department's appeals against the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 28-2-06 passed by CCE, Ludhiana in respect of the cases against the Respondents of taking Cenvat credit on the basis of bogus invoices without actually receiving the goods. Out of the three Respondents, only one Respondent M/s. Saeco Steel Rolling Mills, Ludhiana is represented by Shri Rupender Singh, Advocate. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the other two Respondents as M/s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iginal No. 56/CE/DC/LDH-II/05 dated 31-8-05, 68/C.E./DC/LDH-I/05 dated 30-9-05 and 69/CE/AC/LDH-I/05 dated 30-11-05 confirmed the Cenvat credit demands against the Respondents and also imposed penalty on them. The Commissioner (Appeals), however, vide a common order-in-appeal dated 28-2-06 has set aside the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner's orders. It is against this order of the CCE (Appeals) that the Department has filed the three appeals. 3. Heard both the sides. 3.1 The learned Departmental Representative has made the following submissions:- (1) In all the cases either the vehicle numbers mentioned in the invoices were found to be of two wheelers or three wheelers etc. which could not transport the goods or in some cases, where ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rolling Mills, made the following submissions:- (1) The Department's case is based only on the basis of inquiry with the dealers. No enquiry has been made at all with the Respondents who had received the goods. (2) The Department had initiated proceedings against the registered dealer M/s. HBR. But the Tribunal vide order reported in 2008 (225) E.L.T. 102 in the case of M/s. H.B.R. Steel Corporation v. CCE, Ludhiana , has set aside the penalty on M/s. H.B.R. Steel Corporation. When the penalty on the main person-the dealer issuing the invoices alleged to be fictitious have been dropped, there is no justification for denying Cenvat credit to the Respondents and imposing penalty on them. In this regard, he also placed reliance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... produce any GRs or bilties nor have they been able to name the transporters through whom the goods covered under the invoices, in question, are claimed to have been despatched to the Respondents. All these circumstances indicate that these were only the paper transactions not involving any actual sale of the goods. This Tribunal in the case of M/s. Ranjeev Alloys Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh (supra) has held that when a manufacturer takes Cenvat credit on the basis of an invoice mentioning the vehicle number which is found to be fictitious, the burden of proving that the goods covered under that invoice were actually received would be on the manufacturer. In this case, the Respondents other than claiming that the payment for the goods purchased ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
