Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2019 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 431 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - area based exemption under N/N. 56/2002-CE dated 14.11.2002 - the sole allegation against the appellant is based on the investigation conducted by Commissioner of Central Excise, Merrut, and as per the investigation, it is alleged that farmers from whom the inputs were purchased were non-existence - the appellants were not the manufacturer and issued cenvatable invoices enabling to their buyers to avail inadmissible cenvat credit - Held that:- The investigation was not conducted at the end of the appellants and whole case has been based on the investigation conducted at Commissioner Central Excise, Merrut-II. Without investigation, it cannot be held that the appellants were not manufacturer during the impugned period. Moreover, the entries of vehicles at the toll barriers also certified that the movements of raw material and finished goods - during the period of investigation itself, the appellants were allowed continue their activity by procuring inputs from UP based supplier and selling goods manufacturing to their buyers. During the course of investigation, itself shows that the allegation is only on the basis of the assumption and presumption, therefore, it cannot be held that the appellants were not manufactured the goods during the impugned period. Similar issue on identical facts came up before this Tribunal in the case of Nanda Mint and Pine Chemicals Ltd. [2018 (10) TMI 877 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH], where it was held that Without bringing any concrete evidence against the appellant on record, the proceedings against the appellant are not sustainable. The appellant were manufacturing unit in the state of Jammu & Kashmir is entitled for benefit of the exemption Notification No. 56/2002- CE dated 14.11.2002 and claimed the refund of duty paid through PLA. The appellant was manufacturer during the impugned period and paid the duty on the goods manufactured by them, therefore, duty cannot be demanded on the allegation that the appellant was not a manufacturer - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|