GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
What's New Case Laws Highlights Articles News Forum Short Notes Statutory TMI SMS More ...
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (6) TMI 618 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

2015 (6) TMI 618 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD - TMI - 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 rece .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

in the form of delivery challans and accounting 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/424,425,426/201 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ustries under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

job work. That the main appellant on receipt 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

same cannot be accepted as a complete evidence 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 t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

in the finished goods stock for discharging 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r has also received payments for the job work 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Latest Notifications:

    Dated      Category

20-7-2017 Cus (NT)

18-7-2017 IT

18-7-2017 CE (NT)

18-7-2017 CE

18-7-2017 GST CESS Rate

15-7-2017 Kerala SGST

14-7-2017 Andhra Pradesh SGST

14-7-2017 Cus (NT)

14-7-2017 Cus

13-7-2017 Co. Law

13-7-2017 Co. Law

13-7-2017 ADD

13-7-2017 ADD

12-7-2017 Jammu & Kashmir SGST

12-7-2017 Gujarat SGST

12-7-2017 Gujarat SGST

12-7-2017 CGST Rate

12-7-2017 UTGST Rate

12-7-2017 UTGST Rate

12-7-2017 IGST Rate

More Notifications


Latest Circulars:

19-7-2017 Income Tax

18-7-2017 Customs

17-7-2017 Customs

14-7-2017 Income Tax

13-7-2017 Central Excise

13-7-2017 Customs

13-7-2017 Central Excise

13-7-2017 Customs

7-7-2017 Income Tax

7-7-2017 Goods and Services Tax

More Circulars



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

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

Go to Mobile Version