TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 337X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the respondent ORDER Per: Raju The appellants M/s. APPL Industries Ltd. are in appeal against denial of cenvat credit on capital goods. 2. Ld. Counsel for the appellants pointed out that this is the second round of litigation. Earlier, the matter was remanded with direction by the Tribunal s vide order no.A/681/14/EB/C-II dated 16.09.2014 after imposing cost on the appellants. 3. Ld. Counsel pointed out that demand show-cause notice was issued to the appellants demanding reversal of cenvat credit on certain machinery procured by them while setting up their plant. He pointed out that the credit was sought to be denied on the ground that the document on the strength of which the credit was availed was addressed at K ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith photo certification and also declaration and undertaking of the director, administration in charge etc. He argued that on similar set of documenting credit of cenvat was allowed in respect of injection moulding machine. He argued that in respect of injection moulding is extra documents were undertaking of CA/ supplier order, acknowledgment/ proforma invoice, down payment invoice and the despatch made of supply. He argued that they are supplying the following document, namely Undertaking by supplier, Undertaking by transporter, Customs invoice, Bill of Lading and Acquisition letter by supplier in support of assertion that said machine has been received by them. He argued that in these circumstances, sufficient evidence of the receipt of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 15-141/DSCN/APPL/2012-13, dated 26.02.2015, has interalia submitted his verification report, wherein he has stated that it could not be ascertained whether the machine viz. Underwater palletising system - Type Master 1000, claimed to have been installed in the factory premises of the assessee is the same as imported under the aforesaid Bill of Entry no.649223 dated 26.08.2009. 7. It is seen that the Assistant Commissioner has verified the fact that the underwater palletising system is installed in the factory. The fact that the said machine has been imported by the company is also not in dispute. The only thing disputed is the appellants have failed to provide the transport document on the said machine from Koregaon to the appellants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
