TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 673X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom the parties to whom the inputs were allegedly actually sold by M/s Laxmi Dyechem and M/s Harshlaxmi Chemisolv to ascertain the actual position - The SCN is absolutely silent about the investigation at the end of alleged actual recipients who allegedly received the goods without cover of invoice. Also, in absence of investigation at the end of actual recipients, the allegation of availing credit by the Appellants only on the basis of invoice without actual receipt of goods cannot be allowed to sustain. There are no reason to demand and recover Cenvat credit from both the Appellants - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeal No. 12478 of 2018, 13035 of 2018 - A/10082-10083/2020 - Dated:- 14-1-2020 - HON'BLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL), MR. RAMESH NAIR None appeared for the Appellant Shri K.J. Kinariwala, Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER RAMESH NAIR The present appeals have arisen out of common investigation and hence are being taken up together for disposal. M/s Yahska Polymers Pvt. Ltd. have filed appeal against the impugned Order-in-appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that they did not have facility of storage the liquid goods and M/s Yahska has availed credit on goods transported through tankers. There was difference of 0 to 122 days between the date of invoice issued by the manufacturer/ importer/1st Stage dealer to M/s laxmi and the date of invoices issued by M/s laxmi to M/s Yahska. That on investigation it was found that the goods were consigned to another party vide transport vehicles whereas the same were shown to have delivered to M/s Yahska. That the transporter Shri Vishanji Thakkar, Proprietor of M/s Yash Roadways through whom the goods in part consignment was shown to have been transported to M/s Yahska, in his statement dated 23.09.2016 has stated that they have transported the goods to other parties and no part consignment was transported to M/s Yahska as shown by M/s Harshlaxmi. It was alleged that M/s Laxmi M/s Harshlaxmi have sold the cenvatable inputs without bill to different manufacturers based at Delhi, Kundali, Panipat, Sonipat (Haryana), Alwar (Rajasthan) and passed on the cenvat credit to various manufacturers/ dealers based including M/s Yahska and M/s Vardhman Chemcials without physically supplying goods to them. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the said inputs. The investigation failed to extend the investigation to the alleged actual buyers to whom the dealers has sold goods in cash and the said cash was returned to them after making certain adjustments. The demand has simply been made on the basis of statements which have been recorded under threat, fear and duress and thus are not evidence to hold against the Appellant. The Appellate Commissioner has relied upon the documents seized from dealer s premises, ground plan of dealers, statement of the director/ proprietor of the Appellant Company without any considering the above submission. That only on the basis of statements of traders or suppliers or the authorised person of the Appellant concerns, demand cannot be confirmed. The records of Appellant concerns were not held to be improper and therefore it cannot be said that the Appellant did not receive the inputs. They rely upon Hon ble Gujarat High Court judgment in case of Motabhai Iron and Steel Industries 2015 (316) ELT 374 (GUJ.) and Saakeen Alloys Pvt. Ltd. 2014 (308) ELT 655 (GUJ.) as well as Tribunal judgment in case of Namo Alloys Pvt. Ltd. 2014 (303) ELT 577 (TRI-DEL), S.K. Sarawagi Co. Pvt. Ltd. 2018 (12 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t concerns showing receipt of inputs in their premises, accounting of same, utilisation of such inputs in manufacture of finished goods and clearances thereof on payment of duty and the said vital fact has not been disputed by any evidence. No alternative input shown to have been procured or used by the Appellants in place of alleged non received inputs. During visit to both the Appellants by the officers no discrepancy in raw material or finished goods was found which can point out any alleged violation. No evidence in the form of any cash coming back to the Appellant concerns after payment of consideration through banking channels towards purchase of inputs from M/s Laxmi Dyechem and M/s Harsh Laxmi Chemosolv has been found. The Appellant M/s Yahska in their reply to show cause had also contended that the goods received by them were emptied in tanks having capacity viz. 4 tanks of 25000 Ltrs. 2 Tanks of 20,000Ltrs, 1 tank each of 13 and 14000 Ltrs each, 3 tanks of 8000 Ltrs. and 1 tank of 7000 Ltrs. Also they had jacketed vessel of 7000 and 10,000 Ltrs. respectively. They also stated that the tanker can also be unloaded in barrels of 200 Ltrs. Similarly in case of M/s Vardhman Ch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
