Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2009 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (8) TMI 1038 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT credit - denial on the ground that the inputs were never transported by the manufacturer to the first dealer from whom the appellants have procured the same - natural justice - Held that: - the appellate authority has not considered and appreciated various evidences on record which stand discussed in detail by the original adjudicating authority. He has allowed Revenue’s appeal on short ground which was the basis for the issuance of show cause notice that LR do not bear the check-post stamp and the statement of the transporter. The appellants have rightly contended that statement of the transporter being in the nature of co-accused, cannot be made the sole basis for holding against the appellant, unless corroborated with material particulars. There is no such evidence on record. The assessee has produced ample evidence in the shape of documentary record to reflect upon the fact that they had actually received the inputs from the first dealer and had made payments to them through Demand Draft. In any case, the fact of non-stamping of LR is only in respect of the goods received by the registered dealer - order of original adjudicating authority restored - credit allowed - appeal allowed. MODVAT credit - denial on the ground that the inputs such as copper scrap, copper wire scrap, copper rod etc. have not actually been received by them and only invoices have been issued by the dealer PMM - Held that: - there is no other evidence to reflect upon the fact that the inputs were not actually received by the appellant - there is no dispute that the LRs were issued by the transporter showing the appellant as the consignee of the goods - Revenue has based his case on the Goods Register maintained by the transporter indicating the description of the goods as ‘Miscellaneous’. This fact, by itself, cannot be held to be sufficient for arriving at conclusion that the inputs were never transported to the appellant’s factory. All the documentary evidence on record supports the appellant’s case about the receipt of the input whereas there is no independent corroborative evidence by the Revenue produced on record - credit allowed - appeal allowed. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|