TMI Blog2008 (4) TMI 713X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... confirmed after denying the credit on the ground that M/s Steel Tubes of India Ltd. received only duty paying documents and not the inputs. 3. The brief facts of the case are that M/s Steel Tubes of India Ltd. (herein after referred to appellant) are engaged in the manufacture of MS pipes and Tubes. 4. The appellant manufactured the final product on their own account or on behalf of the others who supplied the raw material for the manufacture of the final product and in addition to this the appellants are also undertaking the job work for M/s Siddharth Tubes Ltd. During May to October 1994, investigation was conducted in respect of the inputs received by the appellant as well as the goods received for job work. During investigation, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w-cause notice issued to M/s Siddharth Tubes, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand. On appeal filed by the appellant the demand was set aside by the Tribunal vide Final Order Nos. 1967-71/05 dated 17.10.05 [reported in 2006 (72) RLT 122 (CESTAT-Del)]. 7. The contention of the appellant is that the credit is being denied only on the ground that in some of the invoices the vehicle number mentioned were not of trucks. The contention is that there are total 132 consignments which were received from M/s Siddharath Tubes. The side slitting, were cleared by M/s Siddharath Tubes on payment of appropriate duty which is not in dispute. It is only in respect of 43 consignments the vehicle number in the invoices are not of trucks and only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ared on payment of duty. In absence of such evidence, it cannot be said that appellant had not received the inputs covered under the invoices only on the ground that in some of the invoices vehicle number are not of trucks. The appellant paid the consideration for these consignments to M/s Siddharath Tubes through banking channel which were duly reflected in the account books of M/s Siddharath Tubes. The amount paid for these consignments is about 3.08 crores and there is no evidence to show that the appellant had received this amount or part of this amount in cash or through other source from M/s Siddharth Tubes. The appellant also relied upon the Tribunal's decision in the case of M/s Siddharath Tubes whereby the appellants were also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch is party to the present proceedings also on the ground that M/s Siddharth Tubes is sending HR coils for slitting to the present appellant on job work basis and the same were not returned to M/s Siddharath Tubes and only documents were fabricated to show the movement of the goods. The demand was made on the ground that some of the documents contained the vehicle number which are not of trucks. 11. A separate show-cause notice was issued to the present appellant where M/s Siddharath Tubes is also party for denial of credit in respect of the invoices issued by M/s Siddharath Tubes under which side slitting were received by the appellant. The side slittings were cleared on payment of duty by M/s Siddharath Tubes, This fact is not in dispu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
