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 availed by the appellant and the imposition of penalties under Rule 26(1) (and Rule 26(2)) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 are justified.
Analysis: The revenue's case rested on transport-related verifications from the 'VAHAAN' portal and statements attributed to certain transporters, asserting that the vehicle types and transporter statements demonstrated non-supply of inputs by the suppliers to the appellant. No parallel investigation was conducted at the end of the suppliers who issued the invoices to verify whether goods were actually supplied, nor was evidence produced to show from where the appellants procured the large quantities of inputs used in manufacture. The transporters' statements were not verified in accordance with Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and no supporting documentary evidence was produced to corroborate those statements. It is an admitted fact that the inputs were used in manufacture and duty was paid on clearances. Absent investigation of suppliers or other corroborative evidence, reliance solely on VAHAAN verification and unverified transporter statements does not constitute reliable evidence to deny CENVAT credit or to sustain penalties under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.
Conclusion: The denial of the CENVAT credit and the imposition of penalties are set aside and the appeals are allowed; decision is in favour of the assessee.