Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2017 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (12) TMI 137 - AT - Central ExciseRebate claim - CENVAT credit - whether the appellants have manufactured the goods in question in their factory or not? - Held that: - chartered engineer has issued a certificate that the appellant has not purchased any machinery during the period from 2007-2008 except Air-conditioner/Refrigerator which supports the fact that the appellants are having manufacturing facility in their factory - The appellants are having inadequate infrastructure to manufacture of building hardware, Garden and Agricultural Hand Tools and they are having D.C. power backup capacity - Further, the appellants filing regular ER-3 returns and same has not been disputed - All these evidences show that appellants are having manufacturing facility of the impugned goods and the same was not disputed during the period in question. The burden of proof cast on the Revenue that if the appellants are not having manufacturing facility then from where the goods were procured and exported by the appellants. The said crucial evidences is missing in the case. The benefit of doubt goes in the favour of the appellants as they have shown the ample number of machinery installed in the factory which have been used for the manufacturing of finished goods. As crucial evidences of diversion of inputs and procurement of finished goods is missing in the investigation, therefore, the Cenvat Credit cannot be denied to the appellants and consequently, rebate claim already sanctioned to the appellants is not recoverable. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|