9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1269X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tral Excise Tariff Act, 1985. 3. A Show Cause Notice dated 07.03.2007 was issued alleging that during the month of July 2004 the appellant availed Cenvat Credit fraudulently on the basis of Invoices issued by M/s. M. K. Steels, a Dealer registered with Kolkata-II Commissionerate having its godown at Liluah. The Adjudicating authority disallowed the Cenvat Credit of Rs. 2,99,877.00 along with interest and imposed penalty of equal amount of Cenvat Credit on the appellant amongst others. By the impugned Order the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant. 4. Heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. 5. The Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that there is no dispute that the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 77772-77773/2003 dated 08.11.2017 set aside the Order in the same situation. 9. For the proper appreciation of the case, the relevant portion case of M/s. GontermannPeipers (I) Ltd is reproduced below: "9. At this stage I may refer to certain decisions of the Tribunal or Higher Court involving more or less identical facts. a) The Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court in the case of Commr. Of C.Ex., East Singhbhum vs. Tata Motors Ltd. [2013(294) E.L.T. 394(Jhar.)] has held that non-payment of duty by the inputs supplier is immaterial and unless factually it was established to the contrary, it is presumed that when payments were made on the inputs, buyer is entitled to claim cenvat credit on such inputs. Hon'ble High Court further observed that it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the case of Commr. Of C.Ex., Ludhiana vs. Talson Mills Store [ 2015(315) E.L.T. 415 (P&H)] have also dealt with an identical situation where the Revenue alleged that the first stage dealer did not receive inputs but only supplied invoices including the assessee in that case and Tribunal held that Revenue did not conduct any further enquiry to verify whether the goods were not received by the assessee and also observed that Revenue was required to hold independent enquiry. e) Further, the Tribunal in the case of Commr. Of C.Ex, Ludhiana vs. Parmatma Singh Jatinder Singh Alloys Pvt. Ltd. [2011(266) E.L.T. 67 (Tri.-Del.)] observed that fake number of the vehicles on which inputs were transported to the assessees cannot be held to be suffici ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... based upon the result of the same investigations conducted at the end of M/s. M.K.Steels and on the basis of the same evidence relied upon by them in the present case. After taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances, the Tribunal came to a finding that the assessee in fact had received the goods covered under the disputed invoices in as much as Revenue has not brought any tangible evidence to prove non-receipt of the goods by the respondent. 11. The Tribunal further observed that the same investigation at the end of M/s. M.K.Steels were the subject matter of the Tribunal decision in the case of Juhi Alloys Ltd. which stands upheld by the Allahabad High Court by observing so that the appeal filed by the Revenue in that ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
