Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2019 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (2) TMI 668 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - denial on the ground that description of the goods in the invoices of dealer did not match with the description given by the manufacturers of the goods - Held that:- If it is the case of the Revenue that the appellant has not received the goods then the Revenue failed to prove from where the appellant received the goods. Moreover, the Revenue has investigated the manufacturer of the goods who have explained the description in the invoices. Merely on the basis of statement, the case has been made out which is not admissible evidence to deny credit to the appellant - receipt of input is not disputed - credit allowed. Denial also on the ground that there is difference in figures of certain inputs from their balance sheet and the RG-23A Part-1 register as they have shown higher figures in the quantity of purchases and utilization thereof by the appellant - Held that:- The appellant has not explained certain inputs received by them were cleared as such and on payment of duty. This fact has been recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) but inputs have been cleared as such are not the inputs received by the appellant then from where the inputs received by the appellant which have been cleared on payment of duty. This has not been explained by the Revenue - the explanation given by the appellant is acceptable - credit cannot be denied. Rejection of credit on inputs also on the ground that they were shown as purchases by the appellant but did not reflect in the records how they were consumed and how they were disposed of - Held that:- It is fact on record that the appellant has manufactured dies from inputs received by them. If these dies are not manufactured by the appellant from the inputs in question then the Revenue has failed to explain from where the appellant got inputs to manufacture to dies - the benefit of doubt goes in favour of the appellant and moreover non recording of manufacturing of dies in RG-23A Part-1 register and ER-1 returns is only procedural lapse for which the appellant can be penalized but the credit cannot be denied to the appellant - credit allowed. Penalty - Held that:- For procedural lapse, a penalty of ₹ 5,000/- is imposed on the appellant M/s. Hariom Forgings Pvt. Ltd. and no penalty is imposable on Shri H.M. Dagar, Director. Appeal allowed in part.
|