Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the denial of Cenvat credit and consequential penalty could be sustained on the basis that the appellant had received only invoices and not goods.
Analysis: The demand was founded on statements and documents that did not specifically identify or test the disputed invoices. The persons whose statements were relied upon were not questioned on the particular transactions in issue, and the statements remained general and vague. The receipt of inputs was reflected in the appellant's statutory records, payment was made through banking channels, and there was no evidence of shortage of inputs or final products or any finding disproving manufacture and clearance of final products. In these circumstances, the allegation rested on presumption rather than concrete proof.
Conclusion: The denial of Cenvat credit and the related penalty were not sustainable and are set aside in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The impugned order was annulled and the appeal succeeded with consequential relief.
Ratio Decidendi: A demand for denial of Cenvat credit cannot be upheld where the allegation of invoice-only procurement is unsupported by transaction-specific evidence and the record instead shows receipt of inputs, payment, manufacture, and clearance of final products.