TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 649X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence in its dealing with the first stage dealer within the meaning of Rule 9(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Admittedly in this case the allegation has been made against the appellant on the basis of statement given by the manufacturer, dealer / supplier of the goods, but no investigation has been conducted at the end of the appellant. Moreover, there is no discrepancy in the invoices issued to the appellant and all the payments were made through account payee cheque. In these circumstances, I hold that Revenue has failed to prove their case with supporting evidence. In these circumstances, impugned order is set aside. - Decided in favour of assessee. - Excise Appeal No. 1593 of 2012-Ex(SM) - Final Order No. A/50348/2015-EX(SM) - Dated:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had been received. The show cause notice was adjudicated. Demand of duty was confirmed along with interest and equivalent amount of penalty was also imposed. 3. On appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), the order of adjudication was confirmed therefore appellant is before me. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that in this case total 9 invoices are in dispute. Out of 9 invoices, 6 invoices pertain to PSPL, manufacturer, remaining three pertain to Bhushan Steel and Rathi Steel. The amount of Cenvat credit pertain to these three invoices is ₹ 45,238/-. He further submits that dispute is in relation to the availment of Cenvat credit on HR coils and CR sheets. But in the statement of Shri Yashpal Sharma, DGM of PSPL, it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n these circumstances, when the statement of manufacturer supplier is that they have not supplied any goods and only issued invoices, there is no requirement of any corroborative evidence. It is the duty of the appellant to prove that they have received the goods physically. In these circumstances, appeal is to be dismissed. To support his contention he relied on the decisions of 1) CCE Mumbai vs. Kalvert Foods India Pvt. Ltd. [2011 (270) ELT 643 (SC)]; 2) CCE Ludhiana vs. Indian Special Castings (P) Ltd. [2008 (227) ELT 322 (Tri-Del)] 3) Ranjeev Alloys Ltd. vs. CCE Chandigarh [2009 (236) ELT 124 (Tri-Del)]; 4) Ranjeev Alloys Ltd. vs. CCE Chandigarh [2009 (247) ELT 27(P H)]; 5) Indian Special Castings Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt, no investigation has been conducted whether vehicles involved in these cases are capable of carrying the impugned goods or not. Therefore, case law relied upon by the learned AR is of no help. Further I find that in the case of Havells India Ltd. [2011 (271) ELT 582 (Tri-Del)], the quantity mentioned in Bill of Entry was 21 MT whereas the invoices were issued for 60MT and in case of Mehta Co. [2011 (264) ELT 481 (SC)], the issue before the Apex Court was that whether extended period of limitation is invokable or not. Therefore, all case law relied upon by learned AR are of no help to him. 8. I find that in the case of Juhi Alloys Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that when the invoices have been issued by registere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
