Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Sunmet Industries, Shri Rajendra Singh Bhati, Shri Ramesh B Jain Versus Commissioners of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax-Daman

2015 (6) TMI 618 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

CENVAT Credit - Whether certain inputs sent to the job workers were properly used or not - held that:- It is observed from the statement dated 27.1.2005 of Shri Sanjay S Mardia of M/s Nissan Copper Pvt Ltd that they are the job worker of the main appellant. He answered to question No. 14 of this statement that several consignments of inputs were received by the job worker and returned to the appellant after job work completion. Job worker has also received payments for the job work done though c .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ting for the goods received for their job worker in the statutory records. Further, only evidence against the appellant is in the form of oral statement of the transporter which cannot be relied upon, when no cross examination of the witness was provided to the appellants in view of their request made before the lower authorities. - Cenvat Credit was correctly availed by the main appellant - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No. E/424,425,426/2012 - ORDER No. A/10824-10826/2015 - Dated:- 1 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ules 2004 alongwith interest and a penalty of ₹ 5,86,793/- has also been imposed upon the main appellant under Rule 15(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rule 2014 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act 1954. Penalties of ₹ 3 lac each has been imposed upon Shri R B Jain and Shri R S Bhati, Partner & Manager-cum-Authorised Signatory of the main appellant respectively, under the provisions of Rule 15(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 and also Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules 200 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of goods has properly accounted for the same in the RG 1 account and cleared on payment of duty. That the only case is made by the Revenue on the basis of 2 statements of the transporters with respect to Challans wherein transporters have given statements that the inputs were not transferred to the job workers premises. The Learned Advocate argued that their request for cross examination of these witnesses was not allowed by the Adjudicating Authority which is not correct in view of the followi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nce in the absence of any cross examination of those witness. That there is no evidence of shortage of raw materials or any seizer of raw materials diverted elsewhere. 4. Shri G P Thomas, Authorised Representative, appearing on behalf of the Revenue made the Bench go through the delivery Challans in the appeal memorandum and argued that no transportation documents have been furnished by the appellant to support their case that actually the goods were transported on payment of freight. It was, th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

duty liability. 6. Heard both sides and perused the case records. The issue involved in the present appeal is whether certain inputs sent to the job workers were properly used or not. Revenue is of the view that only with respect to 2 delivery challans, the inputs were not sent to the job worker and could have been delivered elsewhere. The case of Revenue is based on the statements of two transporters. On the other hand, appellants have relied upon the statement of the job worker and the deliver .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

k done though cheques. Further cross examination of the transporters was not allowed by the Adjudicating Authority. In the present factual matrix there is a conflict in the oral statement of the transporter and the other documentary evidence produced by the appellant. In this regard, Para 14 of the case of R P Industries vs CC, Ahmd [1996(82)ELT.129(Trib)] is relevant and is reproduced below: 14.When the main allegations as to unauthorised? importation is not sustainable, the role allegedly play .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version