TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 130X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... into to come to the conclusion that whether the main respondent has correctly availed cenvat credit of the duty paid by OPL. This factual matrix has not been controverted in the grounds of appeal. What are the responsibilities of the supplier of the inputs and issuer of CENVAT credit? - Held that: - it is on record and held by the first appellate authority that OPL has in fact filed returns with the authorities as and when manufactured and cleared grey fabrics. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Central Excise Appeal No.10046 to 10050 of 2015-SM - Final Order No.A/10214-10218/2018 - Dated:- 22-1-2018 - Mr. M. V. Ravindran, Member ( Judicial ) Dr. Jeetesh Nagori, A.R. for the Appellant/Revenue Shri Willingdon Christian., Advocate for the Respondents ORDER Per: M.V. Ravindran These appeals are filed by Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal No. SUR-EXCUS-001-126 127/2014-15 dated 30.9.2014 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Customs Service Tax, Surat I. Since all these appeals are directed against the same Order-in-Appeal, they are being disposed of by a common order. 2. The relevant facts that arises for considera ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... credit was availed was from OPL, Surat and both the units are thus located on first floor and second floor of the same building despite duty paying documents indicated the movement of copies by vehicle whose registration No. is GJ 5U 1936. It is his submission that the vehicle registration which was mentioned in the documents are wide and definitely the vehicle cannot move from first floor to second floor and vice versa for delivery of the goods to M/s OPL factory at Nandurbar was closed and the said factory was auctioned by the bank, hence the duty liability on the invoices on which credit was availed by the main Respondent M/s Tejas remain unsubstantiated and it is very clearly recorded by the proprietor of the main Respondent that they had no intention to manufacture any man-made fibres or process them from grey fabrics received from M/s OPL, Surat. It is his submission that during the relevant period the duty liability on grey fabrics was 8% ad valorem while the duty paying document indicates that the duty liability has been discharged at the rate of 35% ad valorem. It is his submission that this difference shows that there was modus operandi of transfer of unreliable CENVAT c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... how cause notice dated 23.1.2012 demanding cenvat credit availed is patently time barred as the main Respondent had filed monthly return to the authorities below which have been accepted and acknowledged. It is his further submission that main Respondent had been registered with the authorities for manufacturing man-made fabrics(processed). 6. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both sides and on perusal of the records, I find that the issue is correctly brought out by the first appellate authority in the impugned order wherein he had recorded as under: 5.5 Without prejudice to the above discussions, I hereby proceed to decide the case on the basis of the facts and circumstances and legal provisions as hereinunder paras. On going through the discussion and findings portion of impugned order in original, I find that the ld. Adjudicating authority has confirmed the demand on the basis of the following main reasons: (i) There was fraudulent purchase and mere paper transaction between the appellant and their supplier without any movement of goods, (ii) The supplier M/s Orange did not file their periodical returns with the department, (iii) M/s Organg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cate for manufacturing goods by OPL, Nandurpar and on receipt of the same in their factory premises of the main Respondent without not filing return by OPL will not have bearing on main issue involved and payment of consideration by the main respondent to OPL either partly through cash or partly through book adjustment has been properly gone into in details by the first appellate authority and considered the Chartered Accountant certificate to come to the conclusion that the said credit cannot be denied. It is also seen from the record that the first appellate authority was correct in holding that mentioning or non-mentioning of registration number of the vehicle for movement of goods in any case will not influence the findings inasmuch as it can be clerical error and that there being no dispute of the duty liability discharged on the finished goods, eligibility to avail cenvat credit being not in question, denial of cenvat credit seems to be erroneous. 8. As regards the issue No.2, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in his order-in-appeal has recorded the following findings: Accordingly, the appellant unit is liable to have confirmed the genuineness of the invoice issued by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
