9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 202X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ces without actual supply of finished goods and the primary evidence was mis-matched between the Vehicle number and toll records. On the basis of said investigation, demand for reversal of Cenvat Credit was raised against the appellant in respect of the invoices received by the appellant from the said supplier. It was alleged that the factory records of the appellant did not show the entry of the transport vehicles mentioned on the respective invoices. The appellant had shown receipt of said goods through transport vehicles other than those mentioned in the respective invoices issued by JPPL. The demand was confirmed by the lower authorities along with interest and penalties were imposed. 2.1 Ld. Counsel for the appellant pointed out that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e different it is no sufficient to allege that the goods were not received or that the appellants were involved. He pointed out that they have evidence in the shape of Goods Receipt Note (GRN), which indicate some quantity. He further pointed out that they have paid for these purchases and these constitute sufficient evidence of receipt of goods. 3. Ld. AR relies on the impugned order. 4. I find that the appellants have credit in respect of only five consignments received from JPPL. In all the five consignments, the vehicle numbers do not match. Chart of the said details are as follows: Sl. No. Invoice No. Date of Invoice Truck No. as per Invoice Truck No. through which the goods were received by M/s. Exide Industries, Taloja 01 42 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only invoices were supplied. In the instant case, the issues not merely whether JPPL had paid the duty on these invoices. The issue is whether the goods received by the appellant in the vehicle numbers recorded in the GRN were the same goods on which JPPL had paid the duty. There is no evidence of that. In fact the evidence suggests that the goods received by the appellant and recorded in the GRN was not the same as those cleared by the JPPL, if any, on payment of duty. 4.3 The argument of the appellant is that the truck might have broken down enroute from Jammu & Kashmir to the factory premises cannot be believed for the reason that odds that all five trucks breaking down enroute are minuscule. In these circumstances, the difference of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
