Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Sadhashiv Structral (P) Ltd. Versus CCE, Chandigarh-II

Denial of CENVAT credit - supplier non-existent - issuance of invoice only and not goods - Held that: - M/s S.K. Garg & Sons was registered dealer during the impugned period and all the ER-I returns were filed by M/s S.K. Garg & Sons which were accepted by the department. Therefore, in the absence of any corroborative evidence to show that the appellants have not received the goods, it cannot be alleged against the appellant that they have received the invoices and not the goods merely on the gr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

plier as well as transporter of the goods to reveal the truth. The case has been made against the respondents on the presumption that supplier dealer is not existing firm therefore, there was only paper transaction. Cases cannot be booked merely on the presumption and assumption, there should be corroborative evidence to prove the allegations. In this case, allegation has not been supported with tangible evidence. - Therefore, relying on the precedent decision of the Tribunal in the case of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ned orders wherein cenvat credit on inputs have been denied to the appellants on the premise that the dealer M/s S.K. Garg & Sons who has supplied the goods to the appellant is non-existence and he has merely issued invoice not the goods. 2. The facts of the case are that appellants procured goods from one M/s S.K. Garg & Sons who is a first stage dealer who got registered with the department w.e.f. 05.12.2003. An investigation was conducted at the premises of M/s S.K. Garg & Sons on .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

me have procured goods from M/s S.K. Garg & Sons and availed cenvat credit on the goods purchased from M/s S.K. Garg & Sons. As M/s S.K. Garg & Sons found non existence, therefore it was alleged against the appellant that they have received the invoices but not the goods. In these set of facts a show cause notice was issued to the appellants to deny cenvat credit on inputs procured on the strength of the invoices issued by M/s S.K. Garg & Sons. Consequently, duty was proposes to .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t cannot be denied. It is also submitted that no investigation was conducted with the transporter of the goods whether they have transported the goods to the appellants and no investigation was conducted at the end of the manufacture suppliers of the goods. In that circumstances, cenvat credit cannot be denied. It is also submitted that M/s S.K. Garg & Sons filed ER-1 returns with the department and the same have been accepted by them in that circumstances also cenvat credit cannot be denied .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hat as M/s S.K. Garg & Sons is engaged in issuing of the fake cenvatable invoices for availment of the cenvat credit by the appellants, in fact, no godown was in existence where the goods to be stored. He further submits that the Ld. Commissioner (A) has examined the issue and allow the credit where the manufacturer/supplier has issued the invoice and on the same day goods have been received by the appellant to where there is a gap of seven days of more the cenvat credit was denied. As there .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tal evidence to reveal the truth. Further, M/s S.K. Garg & Sons was registered dealer during the impugned period and all the ER-I returns were filed by M/s S.K. Garg & Sons which were accepted by the department. Therefore, in the absence of any corroborative evidence to show that the appellants have not received the goods, it cannot be alleged against the appellant that they have received the invoices and not the goods merely on the ground that there was not storage facility specifically .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     Update Alerts     ↓  


|| 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