TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 488X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant Company Sh. Kalpesh Prakas Oswal was specifically asked to provide evidence of transportation and receipt of the goods in his factory. He could only say that they could not find such documents and did not produce any document to substantiate transport and receipt of impugned goods in their factory. The appellants have argued that the Cenvat register entries are proof of the goods having been used in the factory - In the case of Viraj Alloys Ltd. Vs. CCE, Thane-Il [2004 (8) TMI 223 - CESTAT, MUMBAI], the Tribunal has held that the entry in RG-23A Part-I could not prove that inputs had been received in factory. Also, in the case of Harsaran Dass Sita Ram Vs. CCE. Panchkula [2015 (4) TMI 933 - PUNJAB HARYANA HIGH COURT], it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... puts merely on the basis of the duty paying documents i.e. Bill of Entry (BOE), without actually receiving and using the inputs in the manufacture of the final products. In pursuance of the aforesaid intelligence, the office premises of M/s NSA and the transporter M/s Shree Vindhyvasini Roadlines (hereinafter referred as and M/s SVR) were searched on 18.01.2008 and incriminating documents/records were seized/resumed for investigations. After investigation, a Show Cause Notice dated 31.05.2011 was issued to the appellant. 2. The original authority confirmed the demand of wrongly availed CENVAT Credit amounting to RSA ₹ 1,64,286/- along with interest and imposed penalty of ₹ 1,64,286/- under Section 11AC. Confiscation of the in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase laws in his support:- (i) CCE, Pune-I Vs. Pioneer Industries - 2014 (306) E.L.T. 671 (Tri.-Mumbai) (ii) CCE, Chandigarh Vs. Neepaz steels Ltd 2008 (230) E.L.T. 218 (P H) (iii) CCE, Chandigarh vs. Neepaz Steels (India)- 2007 (213) E.L.T. 100 (Tri. -Del.) 4. The Ld. A.R. relied upon the following evidences in support of his contention that the goods had not been received in the factory and had been diverted (i) statement dt. 18.01.2008 of Sh. S.K. Pandey, Partner of M/S SVR, the transporter, wherein he stated that the 20ft container FBLU-3089801 was transported from Nhava Seva to Ahmednagar, (ii) the bill of M/s SVR showing the particulars of impugned container for transport from Bombay to Ahemdnagar for ₹ 14,000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gamal - 2012 (276) ELT 515 (Tri.Ahmd.) 5. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 6. The limited issue to be considered is whether CENVAT Credit of ₹ 1,64,286/- availed by the appellant on the imported goods on the basis of the Bill of Entry No. 854886 dated 28.04.2005 is a case of fraudulent availment of CENVAT Credit since the allegation is that appellant has not actually received and used the said goods in the manufacture of declared output goods. 7. It is seen that the evidences adduced by the appellants mainly pertain to the purchase of the goods from M/s Aman Impex, payment for the said goods, payment of custom duty and the book entries in the Cenvat Credit Register. On the contrary, the department has produced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orted by their Company M/s VAPPL under B/E No. 854886 dated 02.05.05 was delivered at Ahmednagar. Shri Kalpesh Prakash Oswal in his statement dated 24.05.2010 reiterated his earlier statement dated 15.04.2010. 8. I find that the evidences submitted by the department in support of the fact that the goods were actually not received and consequently not use by the appellant is very conclusive and convincing. On the contrary, the Director of the appellant Company Sh. Kalpesh Prakas Oswal was specifically asked to provide evidence of transportation and receipt of the goods in his factory. He could only say that they could not find such documents and did not produce any document to substantiate transport and receipt of impugned goods in their ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
