TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 518X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bahadurgarh, but, he has not stated that he has not transported the goods either to Shree Sai International or M/s Dhiman Engineering Corporation. Therefore, the said statement is not conclusive proof to hold that Shri Rajender Rana has not transported the goods to M/s Dhiman Engineering Corporation - In the absence of any conclusive proof, the benefit of doubt goes in favour of the appellant and moreover the statement recorded in the year 2010 for the transportation of goods during the period 2008 cannot relied upon when the transporter does not maintain records of transportation of their goods - Credit allowed. CENVAT Credit - Held that:- The said vehicle was also involved in the case of M/s Sharad Electronics [2015 (3) TMI 1159 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] and in the said case this Tribunal with regard to the vehicle No. HR/55H/7767 observed as without having corroborative evidence that vehicle was not used in transportation of the goods, the allegation is not sustainable. Consequently, the charge of non usage of these vehicle is not sustainable - credit cannot be denied. CENVAT Credit - Penalty - Held that:- The two invoices on which no vehicle number has been mentioned and the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4-50862/2015 dated 25.03.2015, this Tribunal allowed the cenvat credit. Therefore, the impugned order is to be set-aside. 4. On the other hand, the Ld. AR opposed the contention of the Ld. Counsel and submits that the period involved in this case is different from the period involved in earlier case and moreover the vehicles during the impugned period stated that they have not transported the goods or have not capable of transportation of goods. Therefore, the cenvat credit is rightly denied. 5. Heard the parties and considered the submissions. 6. On going through the various records placed before me, I find that the case of the revenue is that the vehicle numbers mentioned in the invoices either not capable of transportation of goods or not transported the goods. On the basis of that, it was concluded that M/s Jagruti Resins or Shree Sai International has issued invoices without accompanying the goods, therefore, the cenvat credit was denied. In these circumstances, the role the vehicles used in transportation of goods is to be seen. There are five vehicles are involved in this case and in two invoices, no vehicle number is mentioned. Therefore, all are dealt separately. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tity of all invoices added together, it is not being transported in one go. Although the vehicle is not able to transport the whole of the quantity in one go but it is the trade practice that the transporter has given the invoice which are issued at the same time and the goods have been handed over to him, the transporter as per his convenience loaded the goods in the vehicle and delivered it to the buyer and in 4 - 5 rounds. This is usual trade practice. Accordingly, the invoices were issued by the dealers for transportation of the goods. Therefore, on this analysis, it cannot be alleged that vehicle No. HR/55/0076 has not transported the goods and is not having the capacity to transport the goods. Therefore, the allegation with regard to this vehicle is not sustainable. Therefore, I hold that the cenvat credit cannot be denied. (ii) The another Vehicle No. HR/55/5287 , the cenvat credit sought to be denied on the ground that vehicle sold and NOC given by the RTA in 2007 and all the invoices issued after 2007 not transported the goods. The owner has denied the transportation of goods, I have seen the statement of Shri Rajender Rana owner of the vehicle who stated that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... observed as under:- (v) Another vehicle was used in transportation of goods is HR/55/C/5022. The statement of Shri Kishan Kumar, owner of the vehicle was recorded who stated that vehicle was purchased in January 2005 and sold to Shri Rakesh Kumar in March 2009. The statement was not written by him but by his relative who is unable to write appropriately and stated that he has not transported the goods of M/s. Jagruti Raisin Pvt. Ltd. Involvement of this vehicle in transportation the goods of Shri Sai International not of M/s. Jagruti Resin Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, if the said statement is relied upon, the same also support the case of the appellant. Moreover, at the time of involvement of the vehicle in transportation of the goods, Shri Kishan Kumar was not the owner of the vehicle. Therefore, his statement cannot be relied upon and no statement of Shri Rakesh Kumar who was the owner of the vehicle during the impugned period was recorded. Therefore, the allegation for non transportation of the goods by this vehicle is not supported by any corroborative evidence. Accordingly the charge of non transportation of the goods by this vehicle is not sustainable. As this tribunal ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
