9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 372X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the respondent - In the absence of any evidence to substantiate the allegation that the respondent has not received the inputs in the factory, the CENVAT Credit availed by the respondent cannot be denied, on the basis of mere assumptions and presumptions. It is observed that the ld. adjudicating authority has given a well-reasoned finding to allow the credit. The Department could not bring in any evidence to contradict the findings of the ld. adjudicating authority. Accordingly, there are no infirmity in the impugned order and hence the impugned order passed by the Ld. Commissioner is upheld. The appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected. - SHRI ASHOK JINDAL, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND SHRI K. ANPAZHAKAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Prasenjit Das, Authorized Representative for the Appellant/Dept. None for the Respondent ORDER This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Original (De Novo) No. 07/COMMR/DENOVO/BOL/13 dated 27.02.2013 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Bolpur Commissionerate. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent viz. M/s. SPS Metal Cast Alloys Ltd., is a manufacturer of non-alloy ingots. They have availed CEN ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssibility of CENVAT Credit is on the manufacturer taking such credit. With this direction, the CESTAT had set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the Ld. Commissioner for deciding the matter afresh. 5. In the de novo proceedings, the Ld. Commissioner has observed that no evidence was adduced by the department to prove the allegation that the inputs were not received in the factory of the respondent and diverted elsewhere; it was not possible for the manufacturer to manufacture the ingots in the factory of the assessee without utilizing the main input, namely, pig iron. The ld. adjudicating authority has observed that if the Department s allegations were to be accepted, then there should have been other sources for procuring the pig iron; as no such evidences were brought to notice, the ld. adjudicating authority concluded that there was no evidence to substantiate the allegation made in the Notices and accordingly vide the impugned order dropped the proceedings. 6. Aggrieved against the dropping of proceedings, the present appeal has been filed by the Department. 7. In their grounds of appeal, the Department has contended as under: - (a) The inputs were transported by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re is no dispute regarding the duty-paid character of the inputs. The respondent is a manufacturer of non-alloy ingots, for which pig iron is one of the major inputs. The respondent has transported the inputs procured from IISCO, Burnpur by railway wagons and thereafter, by trucks, to their factory at Durgapur. Verification conducted by the ld. adjudicating authority through the Superintendent, Anti-Evasion, indicates that there was no evidence available on the record to show that the respondent had diverted the said inputs without using the same in their factory for manufacture of the excisable goods. 10. Further, it is observed that the ld. adjudicating authority has made the following observations while dropping the impugned proceedings: - 4.1 I have gone through the records of the case and considered the various submissions made by the Noticee. The allegations made in the show cause notice is that since the Noticee could not produce any road challan indicating the vehicle no. for the delivery of pig iron from Dankuni / Shibpurchar railway yard to the Durgapur factory premises, there has been no actual receipt of the input in the factory and the CENVAT credit taken on that quant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on have been submitted to the department in periodical returns indicating receipt of inputs and its consumption, quantum of manufacture and clearance of finished M.S. Ingots and payment of CENVAT duty thereof. They have also submitted that payments by cheque in advance were made to IISCO and SAIL and the same were recorded in their books of accounts and they produced documentary evidences evidencing dutiable character of the said inputs, their receipt in the factory, and subsequent use of the said inputs in the manufacture of their finished products. I find that the above points raised by the Noticee are not in dispute in any of the subject Show Cause Notices, and it is on record that no investigation has been done to that effect before issuance of the subject Show Cause Notices and in the absence of the same the allegation of non-receipt of inputs appears to be unjustifiable. 4.7 I find that to substantiate the allegations, proper investigation should have been conducted and evidences, such as, non-receipt of the said inputs in the manufacturing premises, diversion of the same to other places, non-payment of the price of the same to the suppliers, should have been placed on record ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
