Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2016 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (5) TMI 894 - AT - Central ExciseDenied cenvat credit on the evidence as no entry of vehicle no. at ICC, the statement of transporter/suppliers and the expert opinion of NISST - Availed cenvat credit on Bura scrap and furnace oil without actual receipt in their factory premises - Held that:- merely, the vehicles in question were not entered at ICC does not dis-entitle to the appellant to avail cenvat credit on the inputs in question. As the appellant has produced the certificate issued by Excise & Taxation Officer of Punjab certifying that these goods have been received in their factory, therefore, the cenvat credit cannot be denied. The revenue has also relied on the various statements of supplier/transporters and also relied on the statement of Parveen Kumar Garg of M/s LOT initially made on 25.02.2005. This same was retracted by him on from next date 26.02.2005 which was despatched on 28.02.2005 thereafter, various summons have been issued to Sh. Praveen Kumar Garg but Sh. Praveen Kumar Garg never appeared nor the cross examination of Sh. Praveen Kumar Garg was granted in that circumstances, statement of Sh. Praveen Kumar Garg have no evidentially value in the light of the decision in the case of CCE, Delhi-I Vs. M/s Vishnu & Co. Pvt. Ltd. [2015 (12) TMI 593 - DELHI HIGH COURT]. Some kachaa ledger was also recovered from Sh. Praveen Kumar Garg, the same cannot be relied upon as evidence in the matter as these records have been recovered from third party whose cross examination has not granted to prove the truth, therefore these Kucha Ledger is not admissible as evidence. It is found that revenue has relied on the opinion obtained from the NISST to the extent that furnace oil is not required for the appellant for operation of their furnace or induction furnace. In fact the person gave the opinion have never visited the factory premises to the appellant and made a general statement. On the other hand, the appellant has produced the certificate issued by the chartered Engineer who has physically visited the factory and stated that furnace oil is required for the running of induction furnace of the appellant. The said chartered engineer was not cross examined by the revenue, on the contrary, he affirmed the contents of the certificate issued by him therefore the said certificate is having evidential value. In the absence of any contrary evidence produced by the revenue, the certificate issued by the chartered engineer who has visited the factory is admissible. Further, I find that during the course of investigation the furnace oil was found in stock of the appellant. The allegation of the revenue that the furnace oil is not required for manufacturing by the appellant but the same was available in the factory premises of the appellant, in that circumstances, the revenue is failed to prove their case by cogent evidence to show that the furnace oil has not required by the appellant. - Decided against the revenue
|