9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 379X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eld. 2. As per the department's case the appellant/job worker have not received inputs namely Stainless Steel Patta/Patti which was claimed to have used for manufacture of utensils by the job worker on behalf of the appellant. The adjudicating authority relied upon following evidence to hold that the inputs were not received either by the appellant or by the job worker:- (i) Out of 42 invoices involved in the present case, in respect of 32 invoices the Bhilad Check Post of the Rajasthan had given the report that the trucks mentioned in the said invoices were not passed through the said check post which shown that the goods were not transferred from Rajasthan supplier to the job worker in Maharashtra. (ii) The invoices showing the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in their respective statements stated that the goods have been sold to the appellant as per invoice on which credit was taken. Similarly all the job workers also admitted receipt of the goods on behalf of the appellant except in one case i.e. M/s Ambika Industries who denied receipt of the goods. He further submits that in the entire order emphasis was given that there is a different description of Patta/Patti vis-a-vis SSCR coil. He further submits that in the order it was also contended that the appellant have no facility to manufacture the goods, therefore the CENVAT credit is not admissible as entire manufacturing was done by the job worker. He submits that since the input was sent to the job worker by issue of Challan under Rule 4(5)(a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... invoice i.e. SSCR coils. For this reason the goods mentioned in the invoice were not received at the job worker premises. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. I find that the Revenue had relied on the report of Bhilad Sales Tax Check Post wherein it was recorded that the truck mentioned in the 32 invoices were not passed through the check post. On the contrary the appellant had produced 19 numbers of Octroi receipts of Mumbai Octroi Check Post that the same trucks were entered into Maharashtra. The report of Bhilad Check Post is not supported by any other record. Regarding the Octroi receipt it was produced by the appellant before the adjudicating authority, who has brushed aside the same on the ground that s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant themselves carry out the manufacturing activity on such job work goods or otherwise, they are legally entitled for the CENVAT credit in respect of inputs sent to the job worker in terms of Rule 4(5)(a) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. As discussed above, I observe that the Adjudicating Authority as well as Commissioner (Appeals) have not considered the Octroi receipt in defence of the appellant which is very vital evidence as to conclude the present matter the same needs to be reconsidered. I therefore direct the Adjudicating Authority to accept the evidence such as Octroi receipt and any other documents produced by the appellant and after verification of the same pass a speaking order by keeping in mind my above observation. Accordi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
