TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (8) TMI 1038
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0/- to M/s. Monarch Metals Pvt. Ltd. along with interest and penalty of Rs. 25,000/- imposed on the ground that the inputs were never transported by the manufacturer to the first dealer from whom the appellants have procured the same. Consequently, it stands concluded by the authorities below that the inputs never reached the appellant's factory. The above findings are based upon the fact that check-post en-route Delhi to Nadiad, have no records of LRs under the cover of which the goods were transported. Even the transporters have admitted non-transportation of the goods to the First dealer. 2. On the other hand, it is the appellant's contention that they have purchased the input from the dealer, who had supplied them the duty paying doc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt the various evidences produced on record by DGCEI (Investigation). He has observed that there were 4 invoices in dispute in respect of which the department has alleged wrong availment of credit by first registered dealer M/s. Pranav Metal Mart, Nadiad (for short PMM). He has observed that even if it is accepted that the input has not reached the premises of PMM, there is nothing to show that the PMM have dispatched the said goods to the present assessee. They might have supplied to the appellant out of the goods procured from some other source. He has further observed that as far as present assessee is concerned, they have no access to know whether the details contained in RG23 register of the dealer were correct or otherwise and whether....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as regards payment made to the transporter for transportation of the goods. All these payments have been made through Demand Draft to PMM. He has discussed the weighment slips in respect of the goods received from PMM. 6. On the basis of appreciation of evidences, he has come to a finding that the assessee had received the goods from PMM and has accordingly dropped the show cause notice. For the above proposition, he also took into consideration the various precedent decisions of the Tribunal. 7. Being aggrieved with the above order, Revenue filed the appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), who has allowed the same by observing as under : "9. The first respondent has contended that two invoices were not found in the list of rel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y with a mala fide." 8. As is clear from the above that the appellate authority has not considered and appreciated various evidences on record which stand discussed in detail by the original adjudicating authority. He has allowed Revenue's appeal on short ground which was the basis for the issuance of show cause notice that LR do not bear the check-post stamp and the statement of the transporter. The appellants have rightly contended that statement of the transporter being in the nature of co-accused, cannot be made the sole basis for holding against the appellant, unless corroborated with material particulars. I find that there is no such evidence on record. On the contrary, the assessee has produced ample evidence in the shape of docum....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reflect upon the fact that the inputs were not actually received by the appellant. In the present case, there is no dispute that the LRs were issued by the transporter showing the appellant as the consignee of the goods. However, Revenue has based his case on the Goods Register maintained by the transporter indicating the description of the goods as 'Miscellaneous'. This fact, by itself, cannot be held to be sufficient for arriving at conclusion that the inputs were never transported to the appellant's factory. All the documentary evidence on record supports the appellant's case about the receipt of the input whereas there is no independent corroborative evidence by the Revenue produced on record. (ii) The above findings find suppo....