Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2017 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (11) TMI 1516 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT credit - duty paying documents - receipt of invoices without actual receipt of goods - Held that: - There is no other evidence that has been adduced by the department to substantiate that Finecab had not received the inputs shown under 71 invoices of the suppliers. The assertion by Finecab that at the suppliers' end, excise duty had been discharged in respect of the goods covered in the invoices and that they themselves had made payments to the suppliers against those invoices by way of cheques, CR notes, Bank transfers etc., have also not been disproved or controverted by the department. Having drawn nothing from the separate investigations on Finecab including search of the factory premises, search of office premises, recovery of hard disk of main server and its analysis, recording statements of co-persons etc., the department has then resorted to draw in probable conclusions from an earlier DRI investigation into importers of copper rods and initiated these proceedings. Obviously then, except for a riding piggyback on the said DRI investigations, there is no precision or proof even to a prudent degree to back up the allegations against Finecab made by the department, surely, suspicion or presumption cannot take the place of proof. Reliance placed in the case of M/s Motabhai Iron & Steel Industries and others Versus CCE Ahmedabad-II [2014 (2) TMI 63 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD], where it was held that in absence of any perversity in the findings recorded by the Tribunal, the impugned order does not give rise to any question of law, much less, a substantial question of law so as to warrant interference. The impugned order confirming the allegations as made out in the show cause notice, fails the test of legal scrutiny. - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|