TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 648X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the money corresponding to the cheque amount stands flown back to the assessee - Admittedly, the appellants have shown the utilisation of the inputs in the manufacture of their final product, which has to be cleared on payment of duty. As such, admittedly, the appellants required inputs for the manufacture of the final product. Revenue has neither made any allegation nor produced on record any evidence to show that the said requisite inputs were obtained by the appellants from any other alternate source. In this scenario, the Revenue’s allegation as regards non-receipt of inputs cannot be upheld in as much as the appellants could not have manufactured their final product in the absence of the final product. It may not be out of place to me ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ued to them. The said Show Cause Notice was effected by the original adjudicating authority on the ground that there is no sufficient evidence to show that the said inputs have not been received by the appellants, who have recorded the same entry in RG 23A-I register and have used the same in the manufacture of the final product. 3. The said order of the original adjudicating authority was appealed against by the Revenue before the Commissioner (Appeals), who allowed the appeal. The said order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was appealed against before the Tribunal, by its order dated 30.10.2008, remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority. 4. In de novo, the original adjudicating authority again dropped the demand. The s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the premises of M/s. Majestic Industries Ltd. to the appellants. Similarly, the statement of the third truck owner deposing that he has not transported the goods is an oral evidence and is in the nature of statement of 3rd person, which according to the established law, cannot be made the sole basis for holding against the assessee. Apart from the above, I note that no statement of the authorised representative of M/s. Majestic Industries Ltd. has been recorded in respect of 3 invoices under dispute. The sole statement of the proprietor of M/s. Majestic Industries Ltd. recorded on 05.02.2000 reflects upon the sole fact of the change in the godown address, sale of materials stored therein without the cover of invoices, etc. As such nothin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pt of inputs cannot be upheld in as much as the appellants could not have manufactured their final product in the absence of the final product. It may not be out of place to mention here that the appellant s major supply of the final products are mostly to the public sector undertakings like, HMT, PPL, etc. 6. I further find that the Ld. Departmental Representative s reliance on the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Ranjeev Alloys Ltd. Vs. CCE, Chandigarh [2009 (247) E.L.T. 27 (P H)] is not appropriate in as much as in the case of finding of the fact that the vehicles shown as having been used for transport of the heavy iron materials were registered as vehicles which were not capable of transporting 10 Tonnes o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
