9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 673X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t has taken Cenvat credit. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is manufacturer of Cast Steel GM Balls and Forged Steel GM Balls. During the course of manufacture, the appellant procured inputs and taking Cenvat credit thereon and clearing the goods on payment of duty. An Audit was conducted for the period January 2015 to June 2017 in October 2019 and it was found that appellant has taken Cenvat credit on strength of the invoices issued by first stage dealer - M/s Tirupati Associates/second stage dealer - M/s A.K. Sons/M/s Tirupati Associates. On the basis of this audit, an investigation was conducted at the end of the manufacturer of the goods, which were found non-existent during the course of investigation and it was alleged ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rst stage dealer/second stage dealer to their premises and no investigation was done with the transporter/first stage dealer/second stage dealer. Without any investigation, the Cenvat credit cannot be denied. It is only a presumption by the Revenue that as manufacturer has not paid duty since January 2013 and during the course of investigation, it was found non-existent, therefore, it is a paper transaction only, but Revenue has failed to establish that the appellant has not received goods against the invoices, in question. The Revenue has also failed to show how the appellant procured the inputs to manufacture final goods, which has been cleared on payment of duty. In that circumstances, the Cenvat credit cannot be denied to the appellant. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tions to Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 which enables appellant to take Cenvat credit on the strength of invoices which mentions duty has been paid on the goods in question. It is also a fact on record no investigation was not conducted at the stage of first stage dealer/second stage dealer by the Revenue. Moreover, only it is coming out from the investigation that since January 2013 manufacturer has not paid duty, but it is not a fact on record when the manufacturer stopped manufacturing and since when manufacturer is non-existent. As investigation to this question with regard to this extent is silent, in that circumstances, benefit of doubt goes in favour of the appellant. Further, Revenue has also failed to establish if the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
