TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 233X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The lower authorities have failed to appreciate the earlier order of the Tribunal and have given vague findings. In view of the above, the matter is again remanded to the lower authority to examine the correlation between the purchases made by the appellant of the subsidiary gate passes on case to case basis. The appeal is allowed by way of remand. - Appeal No. E/471/11 - A/87070/16/SMB - Dated:- 13-4-2016 - SHRI RAJU, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) For the Petitioner : Ms. Mansi Patil, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri N.N. Prabhudesai, Supdt. (AR) ORDER PER: RAJU The appellant, M/s DIC India Ltd. availed CENVAT Credit during February, 93 to March, 94 on the strength of subsidiary gate pass issued by Supdt. of Central E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oods to the appellants. Similar explanation has been given in the reply regarding subsidiary certificate dated 11.10.1993 of M/s Rashmi Trading Co., that Rashmi Trading Co. sold 380 kgs. of goods to Shree Raj Chemicals under invoice dated 11.10.1993, which was in turn sold to V.S. Chemicals under invoice dated 12.10.1993 and then to the appellants. The explanation regarding subsidiary gate pass issued by M/s Kantilal Manilal Co. is that 100 kgs. was sold to V.S. Chemicals under invoice dated 13.7.1993 and was in turn purchased by the appellants. Similar explanation regarding 169 kgs. covered by subsidiary gate pass of Kantilal Manilal Co. is that the goods were sold to M/s Coating Colours Inc. who in turn sold the entire quantity to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal: - (i) The name of party in the subsidiary gate passes and the name of supplier who had supplied the raw materials to the appellant did not tally. (ii) The parties who had issued the subsidiary gate passes, in their statement, have denied sale of any goods to the appellant and that there is no transaction with the appellant as shown in the subsidiary gate passes. (iii) The appellant had failed to establish how the goods moved from the importer/manufacturer to the person who sold the goods to the appellant. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that they had purchased goods from the dealers who had in turn purchased the same from the importers/manufacturers. It was argued that in such circumstances recording ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Annexure-A to the subsidiary certificates were issued by the Supdt. of Central Excise. 4. Learned AR relies on the impugned order. He argued that the appellants have not given correlation most of the goods and the correlation given in respect of other was incomplete or unsatisfactory. He pointed out that even in case of the example of subsidiary gate pass No. 1795 cited by the learned Counsel, it is seen that against the column Name and address of the importer owing the imported goods and applying for the issue of certificate, the name of Arnath Credit Commerce is mentioned. From the transactions, it is clear that on 24.11.1993 when the certificate was issued to Arnath Credit Commerce, Arnath Credit Commerce was not the owner of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
