TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 615X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct that manufactured supplier had supplied the goods to the dealers. In those circumstances, the cenvat credit to the respondents cannot be denied. Penalty on the dealer, viz. Shri Kaluram Ramdayal Heda is not imposable. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - E/11383-11386/2017 - A/13686-13689/2017 - Dated:- 17-11-2017 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) For Appellant (s): Shri A. Mishra, AR For Respondent (s): Shri Anand Nainawati and P. V. Sheth Advoates ORDER Per: Mr. Ashok Jindal Revenue is in appeals against the impugned orders wherein the demands and penalties have been dropped against the respondents. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the case of the department is that the dealer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hand, the Ld. Advocate on behalf of the Respondents submits that in the similar investigation, the various show cause notices were issued to the various manufacturers/buyers and in one of the manufacturer/buyer, namely, Dhanlaxmi Tubes and Metal Industries (supra), the Hon ble High Court has held that cenvat credit cannot be denied after the detail investigation was conducted showing that the entries at the check post of goods have been made and transporter has not been investigated properly to find out the fact whether the goods have been transported up to the dealers place or not? 6. Heard the parties and considered the submissions. 7. I find that in this case, no investigation was conducted at the end of the respondents to asc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the record of the transporters without the support of any other evidence. The record indicates that there is no dispute that copper ingots purchased from units located at Jammu were transported by trucks from Jammu to Delhi. After transshipment at Delhi, they were shown to be transported from Delhi to the premises of M/s. Pranav Metal Mart, at Nadiad. According to M/s. Pranav Metal Mart, the goods so transported have in fact been received by it under proper invoices. It is also the say of M/s. Pranav Metal Mart that the goods were sold to the assessee and it is the case of the assessee that such goods were received by it along with invoices. 5. A perusal of the order passed by the adjudicating authority indicates that the officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d also recorded receipts of the raw materials in RG 23A Part-I record. 6. A bare perusal of the orders made by the adjudicating authority as well as the appellate authority clearly indicates that neither of the said authorities have discussed the evidence in detail and have merely placed reliance upon the report of the transporter for the purpose of holding that the assessee had in fact not received the goods referred to in the invoices and that only invoices had been issued to it and, therefore, the credit was not admissible to the assessee. On relying on the decision of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Dhanlaxmi Tubes Metal Industries (supra), I hold that the penalty on the dealer, viz. Shri Kaluram Ramday ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
