9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (11) TMI 822X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as the dealers who has supplied the goods have never received the goods auctioned by M/s. Ispat Industries Ltd. (M/s. ILL in short) and the same were diverted to Viramgam units which are availing SSI exemption and are not required the duty paid invoices. After investigation, the appellants were found that they have availed CENVAT credit on the invoice originally issued by M/s. ILL through their dealer finally to the appellants. Accordingly, both the lower authorities denied the CENVAT credit availed by the appellants on the invoices originally issued by M/s. M/s. ILL on which the appellant have availed CENVAT credit. Aggrieved from the impugned order the appellants are in appeal before this Tribunal. 3. Shri Bharat Raichandani, learne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant has availed credit on those invoices against which the M/s. ILL paid duty. As the goods which were released by M/s. ILL have diverted to Viramgam that even the department has been able to prove that the impugned goods who has suffered duty have not received by the appellants at all. He further submits that the statement of Shri Manish R. Agarwal also confirms the allegation against the appellant that they have not received the goods on which the M/s. ILL has suffered duty. In those situation it is appear that the appellant has not received the goods against the duty paid invoices, the lower authority has rightly denied the CENVAT credit on the impugned inputs. He further submits that the department has been able to prove by the stateme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ablished by the department with corroborative evidence that these goods are for the Hot Rolled Trimmings (HRT). For the earlier period also this Tribunal on the similar facts have found that the Revenue has not considered the fact that the appellant has received the goods and consumed the inputs in the factory premises and paid duty for the same and there is no contrary evidence to show that the appellant has not paid duty to their supplier on the invoice raised on them and allowed CENVAT credit to the appellants relying on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of R.S. Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi - 2003 (153) E.L.T. 114 (Tri.-Del.) which was confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi reported in 2008 (228) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
