TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 555X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to claim Cenvat credit on the invoices issued by M/s SS Exports (one of the supplier of the goods). The case of the Revenue is that M/s SS Exports had no facility to manufacturer the goods in question, therefore, the invoices issued by M/s SS Exports are fake, consequently, on the said invoices, the appellant is not entitled to avail cenvat credit, consequently, rebate claim cannot be sanctioned to the appellant - Held that:- It is a fact on record that on the strength of ARE-I, the appellant has received the goods on the strength of the invoices issued by the M/s SS Exports, therefore, the burden lies on the Revenue to establish the fact that from where the appellant procured the goods in question, if they are not procured by M/s SS Ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inary objection raised by the Ld. AR, the Ld. Counsel for the appellant relied on the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Bombay in the case of M/s Venus International Vs. CCE reported in 2015 (321) E.L.T. 539 (Tri. Mumbai) to say that the appeal is not maintainable before this Tribunal. 4. Heard the parties. 5. Considering the fact that the issue whether the appeal against the rebate claim came before this Tribunal in the case Venus International Vs. CCE (Supra), whereas this Tribunal passed the following order : The appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. BR (243) Th- I/2012 dated 9.10.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai-I, which pertains to a claim for a rebate under rule 18 of the Centr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench at Mumbai dated 26 August 2013. 2. By this order the Tribunal has held that the appeal preferred by the appellant assessee before us is incompetent, not maintainable and therefore, it has no jurisdiction to entertain and try it. 3. Since the question of law arising from this order requires interpretation of legal provisions, this appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants on the ground that the same is not maintainable under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944? 4. Our attention has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant is a merchant exporter and procured goods for export on the strength of AREI which has been duly examined by the jurisdictional authorities from SS Exports one of the suppliers. The case of the Revenue is that M/s SS Exports had no facility to manufacturer the goods in question, therefore, the invoices issued by M/s SS Exports are fake, consequently, on the said invoices, the appellant is not entitled to avail cenvat credit, consequently, rebate claim cannot be sanctioned to the appellant. On examinations of the records placed before me, I find that M/s SS Exports was a registered manufacturer and the case has been made out against the M/s SS Exports, on the basis of the investigation conducted by DRI and it was held that M/s S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
