9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (8) TMI 303X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. The learned SDR submits that notice has been served to Shri Bharne, Director of M/s. Nimish Eng. Pvt. Ltd. for hearing on 29-8-2008. Despite this, the respondent is unrepresented and there is no request for adjournment. I find that the respondent has filed a cross-objection, which is on record. 4. Heard the learned JDR and perused the records. 5. The issue involved in this case is regarding the denial of Cenvat credit to the respondent on the ground that the invoices on which Cenvat/Modvat credit was availed, indicated the description of the goods, which were not found in the factory premises and the inculpatery statement of the employee that the description of the goods/inputs mentioned in the invoices could not have been used in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant against order-in-original. While coming to the conclusion, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has held as under:- "11. I have carefully considered the grounds in appeal and the rejoinder filed by the respondent, with support of the law on the disputed issue. The charge against the respondent was that they had availed Modvat, credit against invoices which did not represent the goods actually received in the respondents unit for manufacture of different final products. The department's case is that CR sheets required by the respondent should have been of certain specified dimensions of thickness and gauge, whereas they had received sheets on the disputed invoices in different sizes showing length, width and thickness different from th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Tribunal's decision in the case of Dulichand Silk Mills P. Ltd, the said confessional statement cannot be relied upon as the sole evidence sufficient for accepting the claim of substitution of inputs and deliberate irregular availment of Modvat credit. 14. This claim on substitution of invoices remains within the realm on assumption and presumption, unless these were corroborated by acceptable documentary and other evidences to support the charge, which in the minimal in the present case, required inquiries to be made from the consignor's end. Accordingly, the benefit of doubt on this issue would be in favour of the respondent. I, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the impugned order which is maintained and the department' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
