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. Tirupati Plastomatics pvt. Ltd. Versus CCE, Jaipur

2016 (2) TMI 785 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Denial of cenvat credit - denial based on the investigations conducted at sellerís site - Held that:- In the absence of clear evidence to the effect that the appellant is one of the persons listed and as confirmed in the statement, the main basis of the case stands un-substantiated. Regarding the investigation conducted by the Department with certain transporters, it is seen that the appellants have submitted invoice-wise receipts along with transportís details to substantiate their claim of act .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

efinitive 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.50096/2016 - Dated:- 15-1-2016 - SHRI S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND SHRI B. RAVICHANDRAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) For the Petitioner : .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. (KPIL). It was the Revenues contention that KPIL have issued invoices without any production or supply of PVC compound resulting in fraudulent credit availment by the respondent. The appellants are one of the buyers of PVC compound from KPIL. Accordingly, proceedings were initiated against the appellants to deny cenvat credit of ₹ 13,48,560/-. The Original Authority on conclusion of adjudication confirmed the demand of the said amount and imposed equal penalty. On appeal, the Commission .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s 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 KPI .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eared any goods to them. In the absence of clear evidence to the effect that the appellant is one of the persons listed and as confirmed in the statement, the main basis of the case stands un-substantiated. Regarding the investigation conducted by the Department with certain transporters, it is seen that the appellants have submitted invoice-wise receipts along with transport s details to substantiate their claim of actual receipt of goods. These are not examined and categorically refuted with 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

 

 

 

 

 

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