TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 216X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng fraudulent availment of credit is not sustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant-assessee. - Appeal No.E/21383/2015 - FINAL ORDER No.A/31023/2016 - Dated:- 26-9-2016 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S., Member (Judicial) Sh. P. Dwarakanath, Consultant for the Appellant. Sh. Nagraj Naik, Deputy Commissioner (AR) for the Respondent. [Order per: Sulekha Beevi, C.S.] The brief facts of the case are: (a) The Appellant firm, a manufacturer of Bulk Drugs/API, availed input credit of ₹ 2,53,805 under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 on Invoice No. 312 dated 24.08.2009 and Invoice No. 20 dated 06.10.2009, issued by excise dealers, M/s Aerochem and Aerochem Impex, Hyderabad, covering consignments of Acetonitrile and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant demanding recovery of the irregular credit availed on the two invoices to the tune of ₹ 2,53,805/- along with interest and also proposing to impose penalty. After due process of law the proposals were confirmed and the amount of ₹ 2,22,480/- and ₹ 31,325/- deposited/debited by the appellant were appropriated. The appellant preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and vide order impugned herein, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the confirmation of demand, interest and penalty. The appellants are thus before the Tribunal. 3. On behalf of appellant the Ld. consultant Sh. P. Dwarakanath explained the background of initiation of investigation conducted by DGCEI and details of the credit availed by the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e bearing No. 20 dated 06.10.2009. The Ld. Consultant submitted that the appellant had received the goods supplied as per this invoice and had utilised the same in manufacture of final products. The receipt of the goods is reflected in RG-23 register. The weighment slips for inward entry of goods would show that the goods were received in the factory of the appellant. The Ld. Counsel stressed upon the fact though there were several transactions with M/s. Aerochem Impex and M/s. Aerochem the Department alleges discrepency with regard to 2 invoices only and do not allege any discrepency with other transactions or with regard to the quantity of finished products cleared during the relevant period using the inputs pertaining to the disputed inv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es to the appellant and based on the invoices the appellant as taken fraudulent credit even though no material was supplied against said invoices. He strongly argued that, on enquiry it was revealed that no firm by name M/s Mehta and Company is located in the address given in their registration and the fact that M/s Mehta and Company, Mumbai is a fictitious firm which does not exist at all, it is to be concluded that the invoices issued by M/s Mehta and Company are nothing but fake invoices and no material has been supplied against said invoices. He therefore argued that appellant has availed fraudulent credit on the two invoices showing supply of Acetonitrile, as the appellant was issued only invoices and no material has been supplied agai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant has not paid payment on the rejected portion of the goods of the invoice No. 20 dated 06.10.2009. Further the appellant has also produced the weighment slips which show that the goods were received in the appellants factory. Against all these documentary evidence, the only evidence placed by Department before me is the summary of investigations conducted against M/s Y.M. Drugs and M/s. Mehta and Company and also against M/s Aerochem Impex Private Limited and / M/s Aerochem which are mainly statements. However, there is no evidence to conclude that M/s Aerochem Impex / M/s Aerochem had not supplied any material to any one during the disputed period. When there are so many other transactions entered in the RG-23 register of the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
