TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 19X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in such transactions. On appeal, we find that the Tribunal had upheld the appellant s plea regarding correctness of the credit availed. Regarding credit of ₹ 1,89,789/- availed on imported inputs, the appellants are not contesting the same. The denial of credit in the present case cannot be sustained on the basis of reasoning adopted by the Original Authority - appeal allowed - credit allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeals Nos. 836 to 840/2010-EX (DB) - A/55931-55935/2016-EX[DB] - Dated:- 20-12-2016 - Dr. Satish Chandra, President And Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Shri G.L. Rawal, Sr. Advocate with Shri Rajesh Rawal, Advocate for the petitioner Shri Amresh Jain, DR for the respondent/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the main appellant and various other individuals working with the main appellants. 3. Ld. Counsel for the appellants submitted that the main appellant purchased PVC compound and master batches from KPIPL. They did physically receive these inputs in their manufacturing units and utilized the same in the manufacture of the final products. All payments have been made by crossed cheques. Verifications of ledger accounts will clearly show that the payments have been clearly made and there is no allegation or evidence regarding flow back of any cash. Further, ld. Counsel submitted that there is no discrepancy in the accounts for inputs or final products maintained by the main appellant. They have cleared the final products on payment of dut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eliable and doubtful. In fact, we note that there is no detailed analysis of the defence made by the main appellant before the Original Authority. The findings are very cryptic. We note that it is necessary to have corroborative evidence with reference to the allegation that the main appellant not receiving physically the inputs. Apparently, the case is based on the role of KPIPL as a manufacturer and supplier of inputs. While denying the cenvat credit to the manufacturer of final products, it is necessary to show that the cenvatable inputs were never received by the manufacturer and the credits have been taken simply on the basis of paper invoices without actual goods. In the present case, we note that the appellants produced chart with ve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion or by the Adjudicating Authority. 7. We also note that based on the same set of investigations, the invoices issued to various other manufacturer, who were dealing with KPIPL in producing PVC compounds and master batches were questioned. In many cases, the proceedings were concluded by denying credits availed in such transactions. On appeal, we find that the Tribunal had upheld the appellant s plea regarding correctness of the credit availed. We take note of these decisions as recorded below:- 1. Tirupati Plastomatics Vs. CCE, Jaipur 2016(335) ELT 482 (T-D) 2. M/s.Cords Cable Ind. Vs. CCE-Final Order dt.26.2.2015(T-D) 3. M/s.KEI Ind. Ltd. Vs.CCE-Final Order dt.1.6.2015(T-D) 4. M/s.Rajan Engg. Vs.CCE-Final Or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
