TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 413X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in cash in lieu of cheque received by him. Similarly, he has scrutinized the statement of Shri Kuntal Kumar, who had written and maintained said pidilite diary and has stated that he has no knowledge about cash transactions. There is no statement accepting that the cheque were converted into cash and there was flow back of the money. Similarly, the adjudicating authority has seen the material issue note book and entries made in the private records and the statement of driver and affidavit of the drivers and has come to a conclusion that there is not a single transaction mentioned in the records of Jagriti Plastics that the goods have not traveled from the registered dealer to the manufacturing unit without proper invoices. Accordingly, he has held that department has failed to prove that the goods have not traveled along with invoices and cash has been received in lieu of cheque - Following decision of JAGRITI PLASTICS LTD. Versus UNION OF INDIA [2003 (12) TMI 82 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD] - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No . 1430 of 2005-SM, Appeal No . 2092- 2093 of 2005-SM, Appeal No . 2233 2234 of 2005-SM - ORDER NO . FO/ 50717-50721/2014-SM(Br) - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he vehicles used for transportation of the goods as also of Shri S.K. Agarwal, Director of the Company. Statement of the representative of the manufacturing units were also recorded wherein they clarified that they were receiving the goods along with invoices and the same were entered by them in their RG 23A part I register. Inputs so received by them were being used in the manufacture of their final product, which was being cleared on payment of duty. 6. On the above basis, the proceedings were initiated against all the appellants by way of issuance of separate show cause notices resulting in passing of orders by the adjudicating authority confirming the demand and imposition of penalties. The said orders passed by the original adjudicating authority were upheld by Commissioner (Appeals). Hence the present appeals. 7. I have heard Shri K.K. Anand,, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant and Shri B B Sharma, learned AR appearing for the Respondent- Revenue. 8. After appreciating the submissions made by both the sides and after going through the impugned orders, I find that the Revenues entire case is based upon the scrutiny of the records, maintained by the regist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the this contention. As such, he has only relied upon private register materials issued note books and vehicles notebook maintained by the registered dealer. 10. Learned advocate has strongly contested the denial of Cenvat credit on the basis of records maintained by third party which is against the settled principle of law. He submits that the appellants have no control over records required to be maintained by the registered dealer and as such, these third parties records cannot be made basis for denial of the credit without there being in iota of evidence to show that the manufacturing units have not received the inputs. By relying upon various decisions, he submits that such confirmation of demand based upon the 3rd party records cannot be sustained. 11. Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CCE, Daman vs. Narendra Impsex [2011 (265) ELT 332 (Guj) upheld the order of the Tribunal on the ground certain discrepancies in the records of the some Income Tax returns etc. cannot be made the basis for denial of the credit and the Cenvat credit is admissible on the basis of invoices unless such invoices were found to be wrong or the inputs received under such invoices stand d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been penalized to the extent of Rs.25,000/-. If that be so, the allegations and findings in the present case that they have passed on inadmissible Cenvat credit to the present appellants without actually supplying the inputs cannot be upheld. 14. I also find favour in the appellants plea that the Revenue has not adduced any evidence to show that if the manufacturing units have not received the inputs from the registered dealers how they have manufactured their final product which has been cleared on payment of duty. There is neither any allegation nor evidence to show such procurement of inputs from a different sources. Admittedly, in the absence of inputs, final products cannot be manufactured. I also find no acceptable reasoning and cause to hold that the material, covered by the Cenvatable invoices of the dealer sold to third parties was again purchased by the manufacturing units from such third party for the manufacture of their final product. What can be a hidden agenda in such exchange of inputs is beyond any reasoning and no purpose would be served by the same. 15. I also take note of order of the Additional Commissioner being order in original No. 43/2004 dated 19.8. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
