Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2023 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (7) TMI 539 - HC - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - denial on the ground that the transport vehicles had not entered at Information Collection Centres (ICCs) - ICC records can be termed as corroborative evidence or conclusive evidence to prove non entry of goods in the State of Punjab? - denial also on the basis of statement made by Kamal Gupta son of the owner of M/s Gupta Transporter Company, who had stated that he had never transported any material for LOTC. HELD THAT:- The assessee had sought cross-examination of Kamal Gupta, but the same was not granted to the assessee. In that circumstance, the statement made by Kamal Gupta was inconclusive and it could not be relied upon. So far as the demand of Rs. 1,75,350/- is concerned, it has been observed that the said demand had been confirmed on the basis of statement made by G.C. Arya of M/s APPL. However, no cross-examination of G.C. Arya was granted to the assessee. Therefore, statement made by G.C. Arya had no relevance to deny Cenvat credit to the assessee. With these observations, demand of Rs. 1,75,350/- was set aside. However, demand of Rs. 1,01,048/- was confirmed on the ground that the vehicle, which had been mentioned in the invoices were not capable of transportation of goods in question, as the same were not tankers - Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to dispute the fact that the certificate was issued by the Excise and Taxation Officer, certifying that the assessee had received the material on each and every one of the disputed invoices. Once, such certificate had been issued, the benefit of Cenvat Credit cannot be denied to the assessee-respondent. The observations made by the adjudicating authority establishes that as per the investigation carried out by the CBI, the respondent had actually manufactured the goods and their export was genuine. Therefore, the respondent-assessee was entitled to claim Cenvat credit on the inputs of goods. Thus, no ground is made out to interfere in the impugned order as the same has been passed after appreciating the evidence in the right perspective. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal - appeal dismissed.
|