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 518 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - input services - GTA Services - it was concluded that M/s Jagruti Resins or Shree Sai International has issued invoices without accompanying the goods, therefore, the cenvat credit was denied - case of the revenue is that the vehicle numbers mentioned in the invoices either not capable of transportation of goods or not transported the goods - Held that:- The invoices were issued by the dealers for transportation of the goods. Therefore, on this analysis, it cannot be alleged that vehicle No. HR/55/0076 has not transported the goods and is not having the capacity to transport the goods - Credit allowed. CENVAT Credit - credit sought to be denied on the ground that vehicle sold and NOC given by the RTA in 2007 and all the invoices issued after 2007 not transported the goods - Held that:- The statement of Shri Rajender Rana owner of the vehicle who stated that he has no transported the goods of M/s Jagruti Resins to M/s Vikas Spool and M/s Sparsh Polychem, Bahadurgarh, but, he has not stated that he has not transported the goods either to Shree Sai International or M/s Dhiman Engineering Corporation. Therefore, the said statement is not conclusive proof to hold that Shri Rajender Rana has not transported the goods to M/s Dhiman Engineering Corporation - In the absence of any conclusive proof, the benefit of doubt goes in favour of the appellant and moreover the statement recorded in the year 2010 for the transportation of goods during the period 2008 cannot relied upon when the transporter does not maintain records of transportation of their goods - Credit allowed. CENVAT Credit - Held that:- The said vehicle was also involved in the case of M/s Sharad Electronics [2015 (3) TMI 1159 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] and in the said case this Tribunal with regard to the vehicle No. HR/55H/7767 observed as without having corroborative evidence that vehicle was not used in transportation of the goods, the allegation is not sustainable. Consequently, the charge of non usage of these vehicle is not sustainable - credit cannot be denied. CENVAT Credit - Penalty - Held that:- The two invoices on which no vehicle number has been mentioned and the onus lies on the appellant to prove that goods has been received and through which vehicle, they have received the goods which they failed to do so. In that circumstances, the cenvat credit of ₹ 6,488/- is denied and the same is recoverable with interest for the intervening period. In the facts and circumstances of the case, penalty imposed on the appellant is dropped. Appeal allowed in part.
|