2007 (9) TMI 464

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....C.E., Vadodara reported in 2003 (159) E.L.T.. 393 is not relevant to the present case as the issue involved is quite different. Para 8 of the order reads as follows : "8. The appellant has referred to the decision of Tribunal in the case of Mangalam Enterprises v. C.C.E. -  2003(159)E.L.T. 393 (Tri.-Mum), in his defence. However the cited case is not relevant here, as the issue involved was different. In the Mangalam Enterprises case, the department had disallowed credit on inputs which were not directly received into the factory of the manufacturer and had come via their various godowns, where they were stored for some time. In the cited case, the assessee had taken credit on inputs when they were received in the factory, unlike t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ent cannot be made applicable to the present case. For the reasons given by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in his order, it was contended that Mangalam Enterprises (supra) ratio is also not applicable here. 4. We have heard both sides and perused the record. It is apparent that the applicant has availed credit in respect of goods which were not actually received by them into their factory on the crucial into their factory date of taking such credit. The appellant has casually shown receipt of goods in their factory "giving one or two days from the date of removal of the goods" knowing fully well that the provisions under the law being violated deliberately. It also appears impossible in view of the distance of 2000 kms. from Samba (....