Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2016 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (11) TMI 826 - AT - Central ExciseDenial of CENVAT credit - supplier non-existent - issuance of invoice only and not goods - Held that: - M/s S.K. Garg & Sons was registered dealer during the impugned period and all the ER-I returns were filed by M/s S.K. Garg & Sons which were accepted by the department. Therefore, in the absence of any corroborative evidence to show that the appellants have not received the goods, it cannot be alleged against the appellant that they have received the invoices and not the goods merely on the ground that there was not storage facility specifically when the landlord made a statement that the godown was let out to the dealer - reliance placed on the decision of the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Ludhiana Versus M/s. Dhawan Steel Industries [2015 (10) TMI 1325 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] where it was held that Invoices issued by M/s. S K Garg and sons giving details of transporters as well as manufacturer supplier of the goods. No investigation was conducted at the end of manufacturer supplier as well as transporter of the goods to reveal the truth. The case has been made against the respondents on the presumption that supplier dealer is not existing firm therefore, there was only paper transaction. Cases cannot be booked merely on the presumption and assumption, there should be corroborative evidence to prove the allegations. In this case, allegation has not been supported with tangible evidence. Therefore, relying on the precedent decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Dhawan Steel Industries, I hold that in the absence of any investigation at the end of manufacturer/supplier or the transporter, the cenvat credit cannot be denied to the appellants - impugned order set aside - appeal allowed.
|