Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2014 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (12) TMI 1125 - AT - Central ExciseCenvat Credit - Bogus invoices - respondent has received the invoices but has not received the inputs physically - evidence with the department is that the statements of the transporters wherein they said that the vehicle Nos. shown in the invoices is wrong and confirmed that the vehicle had not transported the goods to the respondent’s factory - Held that:- Mode of transport of inputs into the factory of the main respondent has been explained but the same has been controverted by the Revenue. Further, all the payments of inputs procured by the respondent have been made through banking channel. I also find that there is no shortage or excess inputs are found in their factory during the investigation. Moreover, the inputs have been used for the manufacture of final product. The main respondent has filed RT-12 returns regularly and the same has been accepted by the department. In these circumstances, relying on the decision in the case of Neepaz Steels Ltd. (2008 (7) TMI 410 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH) wherein the Hon’ble High Court held that when findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) clearly established that the RT-12 returns have been assessed finally by the Range Officer which contains all the documents including the invoices under dispute on the basis of which the Modvat credit has been availed and utilized and that payments for the purchase of inputs have been made through cheque/demand draft. In these circumstances, it cannot be alleged that the goods have not been received in the factory of the respondent. Therefore, following the decision of the Hon’ble P&H High Court in the case of Neepaz Steels Ltd. (supra) I do not find any infirmity with the impugned order and the same is upheld. - Decided against Revenue.
|