9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 871X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uct. The respondent had allegedly availed Cenvat Credit amounting to Rs. 10,69,107/- on the strength of the invoices, as detailed below, issued by M/s V. K. Metal Works, Lane No. 6, Phase-II, SIDCO Industrial Complex, Bari Brahmna, Jammu Tawi, J & K (hereinafter referred as M/s VKMW, for the sake of brevity) without receipt of any material:- SI No. Invoice Cenvat Credit (in Rs.) RG 23 Pt. II Credit entry No. No. Date BED Ed. Cess 1 00106 16.02.2005 2,55,715 5,114 313 dt. 26.02.2005 2 00103 15.02.2005 2,55,859 5,117 304 dt. 26.02.2005 3 00314 16.11.2006 5,45,394 1,908 406 dt. 30.12.2006 Total 10,56,968 12,139 2.2 The above allegation were levelled against the respondent in view of an investigation carried ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led the irregular CENVAT Credit on the strength of the invoices issued by M/s VKMW, an investigation was conducted by the Anti Evasion Wing of the Central Excise Commissionerate, Noida. During the course of further investigations it came to the notice that the respondent had shown to have purchased the Copper Ingots against the invoices as mentioned hereinabove and availed the CENVAT Credit and the said CENVAT Credit availed by the respondent was irregular as the goods i.e. Copper Ingots shown to be covered by these invoices issued by M/s VKMW had actually not been manufactured by M/s VKMW and only the invoices showing bogus clearances of finished goods had been issued to the respondent. 2. Accordingly show cause notice was issued or respo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of work by the job worker received the converted goods in the factory. It was also observed that it is admitted fact in the Order-in-Original that respondent had discharged its contractual liability by making payment of these invoices through the banking channel by cheques. Therefore, the duty paid nature of the said inputs received by the appellant is not disputed by the Revenue. So the only question which remains is whether copper ingots are the same as covered by the invoices in dispute. Learned Commissioner further observe that in the impugned order and SCN, there is no allegation that the respondent-assessee received the goods in question from any other source. Further observe that the obligation of the respondent-assessee under the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urement of such copper ingots", is not correct. In view of the allegation as to the source of ingots, being in dispute, wherein it has been alleged that no manufacture has taken place in the factory of M/s VKMW. Hence, this naturally implies that the goods in question had not originated in the factory of M/s VKMW. Accordingly, prays for allowing the appeal of Revenue. 5. Heard learned advocate for the respondent-assessee who has supported the findings in the impugned Order-in-Appeal. 6. Having considered the rival contentions I find that the findings of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) have not been assailed by the Revenue except bald allegation. The grounds of appeal are more or less repetition of the show cause notice. I further find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
