Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2018 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (11) TMI 411 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - fake invoices - appellant wrongly availed cenvat credit based on the invoices issued by the dealer without physical received of the inputs in their factory - Held that:- Appellant has not contested the said amount and the same has been paid along with interest - demand upheld. CENVAT Credit - denied on the basis of the statement of the transporters and on the ground that EVA were not used in the factory of the appellant - denial of credit also on the ground that the vehicles no. mentioned in the invoice issued by Shilex Chemicals is not capable for transporting the said goods - Held that:- The whole of the demand is based on the various statements of the transporters supplier, Shri. Naresh Goyal and one of the employees of the appellant. The statement of Shri. Naresh Goyal is not inculpatory. In fact, he has admitted non-receipt of PVC but he has not admitted that they have not receipt EVA in their factory premises and on account of non-receipt of PVC physically in their factory, the appellant has already conceded, therefore, on the basis of the statement of Shri. Naresh Goyal, the impugned order is not sustainable. Reliability on statements - Held that:- The statements of various transporters and Shri. Jayant.K. Viz were never examined in chief, nor offered for cross examination, therefore, the statements on the basis on which cenvat credit sought to be denied are not admissible. The appellants have used these inputs in manufacturing of their final product which have been cleared on payment of duty. These inputs has been procured and paid the payment through banking challans - cenvat credit cannot be denied in the absence of any corroborative evidence. Credit also sought to be denied on the ground that vehicles no. mentioned in the invoices are not capable for transportation of goods up to the factory of the appellants, therefore, the appellants have not received the goods - Held that:- As per the GR issued by the transporter vehicles no. is mentioned as MH04AL829 but due to mistake vehicles no. mentioned in the invoices MH04AC829. Admittedly, c stands for car, L stands for lorry, this mistake is apparent on the invoices but on this ground cenvat credit cannot be denied to the appellant - credit allowed. Reliance is placed by Revenue in the photocopies of GRs - Held that:- The photocopies of GRs relied upon by the Revenue are not admissible evidence. In that circumstances, the photocopies of GR cannot be relied upon and the copies of GRs produced by the appellant having endorsement on their favour is to be taken as the admissible evidence, as the Revenue has failed to prove contrary to that - credit allowed. Appeal disposed off.
|