TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 282X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ged their burden to prove that they have received the goods in their factory and used in manufacturing of final excisable goods which have been cleared on payment of duty in the absence of any contrary evidence on records, the benefit of doubt goes in favor of the appellant - credit allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. E/59/2012 in E/Cross/3397/2012, E/507, 530/2012 - Final Order No: 60631-60633 / 2017 - Dated:- 21-3-2017 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Shri. Vikrant Kackaria, Shri. Sudeep Singh, Advocates- for the appellant Shri. V. Gupta, AR- for the respondent ORDER Per Ashok Jindal This is the second round of litigation for the earlier round of litigation. The matters were remanded back to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e found not capable of transportation of the goods. In this said facts, the show cause notice was issued to the appellant to deny cenvat credit on the invoices issued by M/s Majestic Industries Ltd. consequently to demand duty thereon alongwith interest and to impose penalty. The adjudicating authority denied the cenvat credit consequently, demanded duty alongwith interest and penalty was also imposed. The said order was challenged before Ld. Commissioner (A) who dropped the proceedings against the appellant. Against said order, the revenue preferred appellant before this Tribunal and this Tribunal remand matter back to the Ld. Commissioner (A) for fresh adjudication of the case on merits. The Ld. Commissioner (A) in remand proceedings conf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecords the newspaper dated 01.04.2003 along with police complaints that fake numbers were being used by the transporter. In that circumstances, without proving the case that the appellant has not received the goods or the goods have not been procured manufacture of excisable goods, therefore, the demand is not sustainable. 8. Heard the parties and considered the submissions. 9. In this case, the sole allegation against the appellant is on the basis of the statement of dealer and the vehicles are registered in the name of SDO, Ranjitsagar Dam are not capable to transportation the goods. In fact, the investigation was conducted in the month of 2/2000 and the goods have been received by the appellant prior to that. No statement of the dr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
