TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 785X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... find that the main basis and the starting point of investigation is the statement dated 26.05.2006 of Shri Naresh Gularia, Director of KPIL. As already noted, he was shown a list of buyers to whom he was to have sold the PVC compounds. The said list was not made available to the appellant to ascertain whether his name is figuring as one of the buyers. This was not examined for a definitive finding by the lower authorities. No verification has been made in the appellants premises regarding the due accounting or receipt of goods. In the face of these serious lacunae, we find that the denial of credit, as upheld in the impugned order, is not sustainable. Accordingly, we allow the appeal. - Excise Appeal No.1146/2011-EX(DB) - Final Order No.5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as asked to state whether he actually supplied PVC compound on payment of duty to the buyers as per the list shown to him. Ld. Counsel submitted that till now, it is not clear as to whether their name is figuring in the said list. Hence, the statement of the Director of KPIL cannot be the basis for denying the cenvat credit taken by them. They have records of receipt of goods through various transporters, evidence of movement of goods during check-post and payment of the sale consideration by cheque to KPIL. 4. Ld. AR reiterated the findings of the Lower Authorities and stated the case against the appellant was based on the statement of the Director of KPIL, corroborated by the transporters regarding the non-use of their vehicles for any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sumption was not made at the buyers (appellants end). In fact a perusal of the impugned order will show that the main reason for denial of credit to the appellant is the various statements given by the transporters, denying the use of their vehicles for any transport to KPIL. In this connection, it is relevant to note that the appellants have relied on GR forms with rubber stamp of Rajasthan State Check-Post, amount paid for PVC compound by A/c Payee, Cheque/DD and issue of C-Form for Service Tax for suppliers during the impugned period. All the receipts and transactions have been duly accounted for in the records of the appellants. We find that in the face of such defence, it would have been necessary to cross verify the admissibility of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
