TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 1381X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e absence of evidence on record that if the invoices were not accompanying the goods then from where these manufacturers have procured the goods who has manufactured the dutiable goods which has been cleared on payment of duty. In some of the cases, the cenvet credit has already been allowed, therefore, no penalty is imposable on the appellants under Rules 25/26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/61943/2018 with E/61944, 61945,61997-61999,62006- 62008/2018, E/60284/2020 - FINAL ORDER No.60008-60017/2021 - Dated:- 13-1-2021 - MR. ASHOK JINDAL, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri Saurabh Kappor, Ms.Reena Rawat Sh. Naveen Bindal, Advocates for the Appellants Shri Bhasha Ram, Authorised ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the directors/authorised representatives of the M/s. Unnati Alloys Pvt. Ltd. or M/s Moral Alloys Pvt. Ltd. The summons were issued but no statement was recorded. Various show cause notices were issued, the Revenue made out a case that as Shri Amit Gupta has admitted that he has created fictitious firms in the name of co appellants to issue cenvatable invoices without accompanying the goods, therefore, the appellant, Shri Balaji Enterprises cannot receive the said goods against the invoices issued by Shri Amit Gupta in the name of the co-appellants, in that circumstance, the second stage dealers or the manufacturers are not entitled to avail credit on the goods mentioned in the invoices issued by Shri Amit Gupta in the name of M/s. Moral Al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment on behalf of the appellants have been recorded, therefore penalties on the appellants cannot be imposed on the basis of the statement of third party. 7. Shri Naveen Bindal, Advocate appeared on behalf M/s. Shree Balaji Enterprises and submits that it has been alleged that M/s. Shri Bajaji Enterprises has not received the goods, therefore, they have not supplied the goods to the buyer, M/s.Chikara Industries. It is his case, that the appellant had received the goods from M/s. Moral Alloys/M/s.Unnati Alloys and the said goods have been supplied to various manufacturer buyers and in the case of M/s. Haryana Industries vide Final order No.60133- 60134/2019dated 14.2.2019, the credit has been allowed by this Tribunal. Therefore, no penal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 2004, the appellant has taken proper care to examine the invoice against which they have received the goods. It is not the duty of the appellant to know about the manufacturer of the goods when invoice contains all the details in terms of Rule 9(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. In that circumstances, without investigating the allegation non receipt of input by the appellant is not sustainable and benefit of doubt goes in favour of the appellants, therefore, I set aside the impugned orders, and allow the Cenvat credit to the appellants and hold that no penalty is imposable on the appellants. 4. In these terms, the appeals are allowed. the same view was taken by this Tribunal in similar other cases. 10. Further, I find that i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
