TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1338X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve evidence to show that the appellant 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 when the landlord made a statement that the godown was let out to the dealer - in the absence of any investigation at the end of manufacturer/supplier or the transporter, the cenvat credit cannot be denied to the appellant. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/1959/2011 - Final Order No. 61290/2016 - Dated:- 1-9-2016 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Shri Sudhir Malhotra, Adv. for the Appellant Shri V. K. Tehran, A.R. for the Respondent ORDER The appellant filed thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gwith interest and penalty was sought to be imposed. The matter was adjudicated, cenvat credit was denied, consequently duty was demanded alongwith interest and equal amount of penalty. Aggrieved from the said order, the appellant is before me. 3. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that there is no inculpatory statement of the appellant. In fact, the appellant have stated that they have physically received the goods on invoices and said goods have been used in manufacture of the final goods. Therefore, cenvat credit 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 appellant and no investigation was conducted a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r in hand no investigation conducted at the end of manufacturer/supplier or the transporter to reveal the truth whether manufacturer/supplier has supplied the goods in question to M/s S.K. Garg Sons or the transporter has transported the goods to the premises of the appellants which is vital 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 appellant 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 n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
