9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 1013X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd., Hindustan Engineering Ltd. etc. as well as to private entities. In the course of their business, the appellant purchased goods such as machine and mechanical appliances such as moulds, machine tools, dies for forging, EOT crane of 3MT capacity, furnace and ovens, from the supplier M/s Ashok Electrical Stampings Pvt. Ltd. vide 27 numbers of Central Excise invoices, during the period between 01.07.2004 and 07.01.2005. 1.1. The appellant has received the goods purchased by them under the 27 Invoices goods at the appellant's factory on the same date on which those goods were cleared from the factory of the supplier. Upon receipt of the inputs under cover of the Central Excise Invoices, the appellant availed the credits of duty paid on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice was adjudicated ex-parte by the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, Haldia Commissionerate wherein he has confirmed the demands made in the notice vide Adjudication Order dated 30.09.2010. 1.5. On appeal, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demands confirmed in the Order-in- Original dated 30.09.2010. Aggrieved against this order, the appellant has filed this appeal. 2. The appellant submits that in the impugned order, it has been alleged that they have availed the Cenvat Credit only on paper without receiving any material. In this regard, the appellant submits that the inputs were received in the factory during the period from 01-07-2004 to 07.01.2005 and the departmental officers visited the Unit on 18.12.2008, ie, afte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nswer to Q.4 of statement dated 16.01.2009, the Director of appellant Confirmed that they have taken Cenvat Credit against all the 27 invoices issued by supplier. In answer to Q.no.6 the appellant's Director stated that all the materials mentioned in the 27 Invoices were received in the factory and they have made all the payments by A/C cheques which is reflected in the ledger submitted by them and none from the supplier side contradicted the above statement of the director of the appellant. Accordingly, they prayed for setting aside the demands confirmed in the impugned order along with interest and penalty. 3. The Ld. A.R. reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 4. Heard both sides and perused the appeal documents. 5. We observe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pplied those machines. We observe that the machines and machine tools were available in the factory and the same were used for the manufacture of MS Ingots, alloy steel forging machine square and non-alloy steel forging square in the factory for the past four years. 5.2. We observe that the officers of Central Excise, Anti-Evasion Unit of Haldia Commissionerate visited the factory of the appellant on 18.12.2008 after more than four years from the date of purchase of the said goods. Thus, we observe that non-availability of logo/stamp of Supplier in the goods after four years of its use cannot be a reason to deny the credit availed on the said goods. 5.3. From the statement of Mr. Ashok Kumar Kar, the Director of supplier recorded on 02.03 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
