Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2019 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 761 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - denied on the ground that, the owners of the vehicles denied transportation of the goods from the suppliers/manufacturers/dealers to the appellants - Held that:- No statements of driver of vehicles have been recorded. it is not brought on record if the material have not been received by the appellant in question, from where they bought the raw materials to manufacture final products which have been cleared on payment of duty. Therefore, in the absence of any cogent evidence corroborating with the statement of owners of vehicles, the credit cannot be denied. CENVAT Credit - denied on the ground that the owners of vehicles were not found at the addresses given in the record of DTO - Held that:- No investigation has been conducted with record of transportation of goods. Merely on the ground that if the owners of the vehicle are not located at the addresses where the vehicle is registered cannot be the reason for denial of credit in the absence of any cogent evidence, therefore, the credit of ₹ 13,46,684/- is allowed. CENVAT Credit - denied on the ground that the vehicles were reported to be non-transport vehicles during the impugned period - Held that:- There was newspaper report wherein police complaints have been made that the fake registration are used by the transporters and the said issue has been examined by this Tribunal in the case of Setlco Strips Ltd. [2017 (5) TMI 282 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH] - credit cannot be denied. CENVAT Credit - denied on the ground that the record of vehicle in the DTO office has been destroyed - Held that:- Merely the record of vehicle in the DTO office has been destroyed cannot be reason for denial of credit in the absence of positive evidence or non receipt of the goods by the appellant. CENVAT Credit - credit was denied without verification - Held that:- No investigation has been conducted by the investigating officer. Without investigation, it cannot be concluded that the appellant has not received the goods. Therefore, the credit cannot be denied to the appellant. CENVAT credit - denied on the ground that after 1.10.1999, the manufacturer/suppliers/dealers has vacated the godown for storage of goods - Held that:- Merely the supplier has vacated the space of storage of the goods in question cannot be reason for denial of credit in the absence of any positive evidence that the dealers have not supplied the goods to the appellant. In fact, the dealer has categorically stated that they have supplied the goods, therefore, the credit is allowed to the appellant. CENVAT Credit - denied on the basis of statement of Shri Baldev Raj Ram Murti, who was called for cross examination during adjudication and stated that they have supplied the goods to the appellant and the statement in cross examination has not been relied upon by the adjudicating authority - Held that:- The adjudicating authority has not followed the principles of natural justice to admit the statement made by the witnesses during the course of cross examination and no evidence has been produced by the Revenue to deny the credit. Therefore, the credit cannot be denied. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|