Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2019 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (1) TMI 1159 - CESTAT CHANDIGARHCENVAT Credit - fake invoices - it was alleged that respondents were received only the cevatable invoices without receiving the goods in question - allegation is based on that the statements of certain drivers/transporter - Held that:- The said statements of drivers have been controverted by the respondents by producing various vouchers which certified that the respondents have received the inputs but in specific instances like in the case of truck no. HR-38N-1285 and HR- 38M-2282, the vehicles are stated to refrigerate van - Admittedly, the refrigerated van cannot transport the goods i.e. plastic mould to the respondents; therefore, the said statement of driver is admissible by holding that the Cenvat credit of invoice bearing vehicle no. HR-38N- 1285 and HR-38M-2282 is denied in the case of M/s Novice Polymers and M/s Airvision India Pvt Ltd respectively - CENVAT Credit rightly denied. In the case of vehicle no. RJ14-1G-7077, there is categorical statement of the owner of the vehicle, that vehicle was carrying the goods from Yamuna Nagar to Jaipur through Harsh Roadlines, Yamuna Nagar who has brought GR issued by Harsh Roadlines as an evidence for movement of the vehicle. The said GR has not been controverted by the respondents with any tangible evidence - credit rightly denied. In the case of vehicle no. DL-1M-1360, the vehicle is a dumper which can only be used for lifting debris. The statement of Sh. Jadish Chand has been taken on records, therefore, the statement of Sh. Jagdish Chand, the owner of Vehicle No. DL1M- 1360 is admissible evidence consequently, the invoices bearing vehicle no. DL-1M-1360, the Cenvat credit is not admissible - credit rightly denied. Penalty on M/s DR Polymers under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Held that:- M/s DR Polymers found to be involved for issuing the impugned invoices. However, M/s DR Polymers is a company and having no knowledge or benefit arriving out of the activity - the penalty is not imposable on a juristic person under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Therefore, penalty on M/s DR Polymers is not imposable. CENVAT credit rightly denied - penalty set aside - appeal allowed in part.
|