TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 1256X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtain to M/s Signet Overseas Ltd. have not been corroborated from any independent evidences. The same is nowhere corroborating with any evidence from the Appellant s record or documents. The investigation has not brought any incriminating documents from the Appellant. None of the transporters have been questioned to ascertain whether any goods were diverted enroute to Appellant Unit. In absence of any investigation to that effect, I am of the view that the goods were received by the Appellant unit. Confirmation of demand and imposition of penalty by the authorities below are not justified - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeal No. E/1211/2012-E[SM] - 54026 /2016 - Dated:- 23-6-2016 - Hon'ble Mr. S.K. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 100/-. That the Appellant paid the amount to M/s Signet Overseas in cheque and in turn, the said amount was returned back to them in cash as found from cash slips seized from Shri Kirti Kala, Cashier of M/s Signet Overseas Ltd. As entered in his laptop. On the basis of investigation, it was alleged that the Appellant firm has availed cenvat credit on the strength of invoices of M/s Haldia Petrochemicals and M/s Signet Overseas Ltd. without receipt of inputs namely, Plastic Granules without receipt of goods and diverting the goods to Indore Godown of M/s Signet Overseas Ltd. 3. The above show cause notice was adjudicated by the ld. Additional Commissioner, Indore vide Order dated 30.06.2011, wherein he confirmed the proposed Cenvat dema ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation of the revenue was found in the factory of Appellant. That all evidences relied upon are from the persons associated with SOL. The cash slips and entries found in laptop of Shri Kirti Kala were not maintained in the regular course of business and the demand cannot be confirmed on the basis of these records. The demands made on the basis of records of third party are not sustainable against them. He relies upon the judgment of Tribunal in the case of M/s TGL Poshak Corporation Vs. CCE, Hyderabad-2002(140) ELT 187 (Tri-Chennai), Rhino Rubbers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bangalore- 1996(85) ELT 260 (Tribunal), CCE, Coimbatore Vs. Rajaguru Spinning Mills (P) Ltd.-2009 (243) ELT 280 (Tri. Chennai) and Rutvi Steel Alloys Vs. CCE, Rajkot- 2009 (243 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly shows that the goods were actually transported. 4.4 That during investigation the officers resumed input invoices, R.G.1 Register, Raw material Register, Finished goods register, RG23A Part I and Part II Register from the Appellant s factory. The goods were found fully accounted for in the records and issued for production. No discrepancy in records were found and the said records/ documents maintained in regular course of business were not alleged or held to be concocted/ fabricated. That the payment for purchases was made through Bank channel and was recorded in the Books of Accounts of the Appellant. That in such a case, it cannot be alleged that the Appellant has not received the subject inputs and availed any illegal or wro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ur, the revenue has accepted the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and no further appeal was filed. However, in case of three other assesses namely, M/s Parag Pentachem, M/s Rajshree Plastiwood and M/s Kisan Extrusions Ltd., the revenue filed appeals against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). All such appeals filed by the revenue were dismissed by the Tribunal. Further, the demand confirmed against M/s Tulsi Extrusions was set aside by the Tribunal. He submits that in view of the Orders passed by the Tribunal and Commissioner (Appeals), it is very much clear that the allegation against the Appellant are not sustainable as the cases arising from the same investigation have been set aside. 5. On the other hand, the Ld. AR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M/s BBTC that he did not transported any goods but only issued bilties by charging ₹ 100/- as commission. I find from his statement that he has issued bilties only when he talked to the drivers of vehicles transporting goods and thus the reliance cannot be placed upon his statement to confirm the demand against the Appellant s firm. I also find that the said transporter is concerned only with two consignments on which credit is sought to be allowed. I find that out of 24 consignments, 22 consignments were transported by different transporters directly from Haldia to Appellant s unit. None of these transporters have been questioned to ascertain whether any goods were diverted enroute to Appellant Unit. In absence of any investigat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
