9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1235X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Respondent: Shri V. Gupta, AR ORDER PER: ASHOK JINDAL The appellant M/s. Tharaj Castings Pvt.Ltd. (Tharaj) is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the demand has been confirmed along with interest by denying Cenvat credit on inputs alleging that the same cannot be inputs for the appellant to manufacture their final products and co-appellants are in appeal against the impugned order imposing penalties on them. 2. The facts of the case are the appellant (Tharaj) is engaged in the manufacture of alloy and non alloy steel ingots, castings etc. and availing Cenvat credit on inputs. During the course of audit from 22.7.2009 to 24.7.2009, it was found that M/s. Tharaj was availing Cenvat credit on certain goods, namely, bars and r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed and penalties have also been imposed on the co-appellants. Against the said order, all the appellants are before us. 3. Ld.Counsel for the appellant submit that M/s.Tharaj was engaged in the manufacture of alloy and non-alloy ingots, SG castings and auto parts. They were having induction furnace and casting furnace of capacity 3.5 MT and 350 kg respectively. The SG casting and alloy steel ingots were required quality and high standard scrap to arrive at specified quality/grade. The price of alloy steel and SG castings were supplied as OE's to Maruti Udyog Ltd., Tata Motors Ltd., etc. The end user of alloy steel were mostly manufacturer-exporter of hand tools. The average prices of castings manufactured and sold by them was Rs. 40,000/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... To support his contention, he relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Didar Steel Complex Pvt.Ltd.-1996 (87) ELT 702 (Tri.). Therefore, he prayed that the impugned order is to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, Ld.AR supported the impugned order and submits that during the course of investigation, Shri Naveen Dhooper, the Director of the appellant himself has admitted that they have sold the goods in question in market without issuance of invoice, in that circumstance, the demand has rightly been raised against the appellant. 6. Heard the parties and considered the submissions. 7. We find that in this case the credit sought to be denied on the goods in question solely on the ground that the said goods in question cannot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de what should be the inputs for the appellant to manufacture their final products in the absence of any corroborative evidence. 9. As the Revenue has failed to bring on record any cogent evidence in support of their allegation, therefore, the allegation that the goods in question cannot be the inputs for the appellant M/s.Tharaj for manufacture of their final product is not sustainable. 10. In that circumstance, we hold that the appellant M/s.Tharaj has rightly availed Cenvat credit on the goods in question which have been used in the manufacture of their final products and the same have been cleared on payment of duty. Therefore, the credit availed by the appellant M/s.Tharaj is allowed and penalty is not imposable on the appellant and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
