2009 (7) TMI 1053

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... J. Shri Kamajjeet Singh, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri S.N. Srivastava and Iskit Khar Baig, SDRs, for the Respondent. ORDER Common issue is involved in these appeals and, therefore, all are being taken up together for disposal. 2. Learned Advocate submits that the appellants/assessees are registered dealers/manufacturer of final product and the Partner/Director/Manager /Authorized signat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... (CESTAT-Del.). 3. Learned DRs on behalf of the Revenue submit that on investigation it was found that the vehicle numbers mentioned in the invoices are of two wheelers, like scooter and moped, etc. which are not capable to carry-huge quantity of material. They also submits that the appellants/assessee failed to establish that they supplied the material with invoices with any evidence. Learned DR....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..../upheld on the basis of News-papers reports. It is seen that the Commissioner (Appeals) have not examined the evidences placed by the appellants. The Division Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Aarti Steels Ltd. & Ors. (Supra), after considering the decision in the case of Ranjeev Alloys Ltd. (Supra), held as under :- "4. The Revenue relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on of goods is denied, therefore, the credit was rightly denied. In other cases revenue during investigation found that the dealers who issued the invoices had not received the inputs. 5. We find that the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Ranjeev Alloys (Supra) held that onus initially lies on the department to show that inputs are not received in the factory of production and credit has been wrongly ....