Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2019 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 870 - CESTAT NEW DELHIClandestine manufacture ad removal - suppression of production of clandestine removal of goods without issue of any invoice - shortage of stock - allegation based on differences between stock statement submitted with the bank and statutory record - no corroborative evidences - opportunity of cross-examination not granted - HELD THAT:- In the case of BEEKAYLON SYNTHETICS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., SURAT/MUMBAI [2003 (8) TMI 108 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI], time and again the Tribunal observed that bank statement by itself cannot be the basis for holding that there was undervaluation for clandestine removal - thus, on the basis of differences between the stock statement furnished to the bank and statutory record cannot be the reason to allege the clandestine removal of goods in the absence of any corroborative evidence - Further, no opportunity of cross-examination was granted to the appellant to adduce evidence - demand of duty not sustainable. CENVAT Credit - denial on the ground of non payment for procurement of the input - Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - HELD THAT:- In terms of Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 an assessee is entitled to avail cenvat credit on receipt of the inputs. It is immaterial where assessee paid the amount to supplier of the inputs or not - Merely, the appellant did not pay amount towards supply of inputs to the appellant and in the absence of any contrary evidence, the cenvat credit cannot be denied to the appellant. The penalties imposed on all the appellants are also set aside. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|