TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 826X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . If according to Revenue inputs were not received by the appellant, I really fail to understand as to how the appellant had manufactured their final product, which stand cleared on payment of duty. The Tribunal came to a finding that the assessee in fact had received the goods covered under the disputed invoices in as much as Revenue has not brought any tangible evidence to prove non-receipt of the goods by the respondent. The invoices issued by M/s.M.K.Steels, on the basis of which they have availed the credit were not valid documents for availing the credit. As such it seems that the said order was passed in the light of concession made by the appellant and has no relevance in the present case. Appeal dismissed - decided against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he does not have any godown. 4. On the above basis proceedings were initiated against the present appellant proposing to deny the credit on the ground that the invoices issued by M/s.M.K.Steels were fake invoices and as such availment of credit on the basis of the same was not available to the assessee. Accordingly notice proposed to confirm the demand and imposed penalties. The said show cause notice culminated into an order passed by the original adjudicating authority confirming the demand and imposing penalties. However, on appeal against the said order Commissioner(Appeals) set aside the same and hence the present appeals by the Revenue. 5. After hearing both sides duly represented by Shri S.Mukhopadhyay, ld.AR for the Revenue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct that such cheques were encashed by the appellant himself or the consideration of the inputs flowed back to him. The Revenue has not investigated the said fact in which scenario it cannot be held that the goods were actually not purchased by the assessee. He has also observed that the appellant had taken input credit by reflecting the inputs as also the credit in their statutory records, which were subjected to scrutiny by the Revenue when the requisite returns were filed. No lacuna was ever detected by the Revenue. 6. He has further observed that admittedly the appellant need the inputs for the manufacture of their final product, which stands cleared by them on payment of duty. Revenue has nowhere established as to any alternative ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n question. Admittedly the appellant s final product cannot be manufactured out of vacuum and requires inputs. If according to Revenue inputs were not received by the appellant, I really fail to understand as to how the appellant had manufactured their final product, which stand cleared on payment of duty. All the precedent decisions relied upon by Commissioner(Appeals) are to the effect that in such scenario, the Cenvat credit cannot be disallowed. 10. At this stage I may refer to certain decisions of the Tribunal or Higher Court involving more or less identical facts. a) The Hon ble Jharkhand High Court in the case of Commr. Of C.Ex., East Singhbhum vs. Tata Motors Ltd. [2013(294) E.L.T. 394(Jhar.)] has held that non-payment of dut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngg. Vs. Commr. Of C.Ex., Chandigarh-I [2014(304)E.L.T. 436(Tri.-Del.)] is also to the effect that the credit would be available in respect to invoices issued by registered dealer indulging in fraudulent transactions. d) The Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of Commr. Of C.Ex., Ludhiana vs. Talson Mills Store [ 2015(315) E.L.T. 415 (P H)] have also dealt with an identical situation where the Revenue alleged that the first stage dealer did not receive inputs but only supplied invoices including the assessee in that case and Tribunal held that Revenue did not conduct any further enquiry to verify whether the goods were not received by the assessee and also observed that Revenue was required to hold independent enquiry. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unal s latest decision in the case of Commr. Of C.Ex., Lucknow vs. M/s. Premier Alloys Ltd. [2015(7) TMI 1173-CESTAT, New Delhi] where in the Tribunal dealt with the supplies made by the same dealer M/s. M.K.Steels. The Revenue in that case refused to deny the credit to the assessee, based upon the result of the same investigations conducted at the end of M/s. M.K.Steels and on the basis of the same evidence relied upon by them in the present case. After taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances, the Tribunal came to a finding that the assessee in fact had received the goods covered under the disputed invoices in as much as Revenue has not brought any tangible evidence to prove non-receipt of the goods by the respondent. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
