Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2022 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 6 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - receipt of raw materials or inputs - non-existent dealers - purchases were actually made by the said First Stage Dealers from manufacturing units of Dhanbad or not - reliability of statements - discharge of onus as required under Rule 9(1) & (5) of CCR, 2004 - HELD THAT:- The Revenue is not disputing the fact that First Stage Dealers raised invoices giving all the particulars required to be given under the provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules, in respect of material supplied to the assessee-Appellant. It is also not being disputed that the assessee-Appellant has received inputs for manufacture and entered the same in their Central Excise records. The said inputs were further used by the assessee-Appellant in the manufacture of their final product which were cleared by them on payment of duty. This fact is sufficient to prove the physical entry of the inputs in the assessee-Appellant’s premises. Further, the ledger account and RG-23A register (cenvat register) maintained by the assessee-Appellant is supported by weighment slips, also proves the receipt of the goods. The assessee-Appellant also produced the sample invoices against which they have availed the Cenvat Credit along with supporting documents, including lorry receipts and weighment slips. Also demonstrated the ledger account of the suppliers, supported with statutory register and Bank Statement. Thus, appellant have prima facie, discharged the onus on them. Therefore, the burden is cast upon the Revenue to prove that it was merely a paper transaction, and goods were not received by the assessee-Appellant, as alleged, which it failed - It is further demonstrated that all the payments made to the First Stage Dealers are through banking channels, by way of Cheques/RTGS. The Revenue has not brought on record any evidence to prove any flow back of monies. The assessee-Appellant have discharged its onus as required under Rule 9(1) & (5) of CCR, 2004 and as explained by Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in its decision in the case of THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE CUSTOMS & SERVICE TAX VERSUS M/S. JUHI ALLOYS LTD., ANIL KUMAR SHUKLA [2014 (1) TMI 1475 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT]. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|