Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2013 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (11) TMI 1035 - AT - Central ExciseBogus invoices issued for supply of scrap – Burden to prove – Held that:- Following Ranjeev Alloys Limited Vs. CCE, Chandigarh [2008 (9) TMI 223 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] - when the registration number of the vehicles mentioned in the invoice in which the goods are claimed to have transported is found to be fake or of two wheeler & three wheeler etc. not capable of transporting the goods mentioned in the invoice, the burden would shift to the assessee, who had taken Cenvat Credit on the basis of such invoice, to prove that the goods covered on the invoice were, indeed, received by him - Non-mentioning or wrong mentioning of vehicle number issued for the transportation of the goods does not bar any assessee to avail Cenvat Credit or any other benefit under Central E Only the production of creditable evidence in support of receipt of goods by the Respondent would shift the burden of proof to the Department - The Commissioner (Appeals) travelled beyond the scope of the remand has accepted newspaper reports as evidence produced by the Respondent which is totally incorrect - the invoices on the basis of which the Cenvat Credit used to be taken, were not required to be enclosed with the ER-1 Return - the burden is on the assessee to prove that they had received the goods covered under the invoices on the basis of which Cenvat Credit had been taken, it is the assessee who have to produce evidence in this regard and for this purpose they cannot ask the Department to produce evidence regarding alternative raw-material used by the respondent for manufacture of final products – order set aside – Decided in favour of Revenue.
|