TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 476X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - A/57379/2017-SM[BR] - Dated:- 10-10-2017 - Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) Present for the Appellant : Ms. Sukriti Das, Advocate Present for the Respondent: Mr.K. Poddar, D.R. ORDER Per: S.K. Mohanty This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 19.07.2012 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise and Customs, Raipur. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in manufacture of aluminium alloy ingots falling under Chapter 76 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During July, 2005, the appellant imported aluminium scrap for use as input for manufacture of the said final product. Additional Duty of Customs (CVD) paid on such imported goo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods were not received at factory of the appellant, disallowance of Cenvat Credit by the authorities below is not proper and justified. She also refers to the consignment notes issued by the transporter M/s. Lakshya Container Carrier and ERE Form issued by the local authority to show that the goods covered under the Bills of Entry were in fact transported from the port of import to the factory of the appellant for use in or in relation to manufacture of final product. She also relied on judicial pronouncement to state that the onus to prove nonreceipt of goods in the factory and diversion of the same to third party entirely lies with the Department, which have not been satisfactorily discharged by the Revenue. 4. On the other hand the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... given on 30.07.2005 which substantially proves that there is substantial evidence against Appellant No.1 regarding non receipt of imported goods in their factory premises. From the copy of RG-23A Pt.1 for the month of August, 2005 and RG-23A Pt.2 for Sept., 2005 showing entry regarding receipt of goods on 20.08.2005 and taking Cenvat credit on 01.09.2005, I find that, Appellant NO.1 has deliberately shown the receipt of the item and subsequently took credit of duty/ CVD on the basis of document only as they failed to put on record any documentary evidence showing movement and receipt of containerized goods under the cover of BOE No.921777 921778 dated 21.07.2008. Also I find that the above view is further substantiated from the contradict ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
