2011 (1) TMI 109

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ant facts, in brief, are that the registered dealer by name M/s.Amit Steel Traders of Mandi Gobindgarh as per invoice supplied the goods in October, 2003 to the respondents and the respondents took credit based on such invoices. The investigation conducted by the department in March/April, 2006 revealed that the transport firms, namely, M/s.Neel Kanth Roadlines and M/s.Shree Dugra Roadlines were found to be not existing in the premises mentioned in the transport documents as per endorsements given by the postal authorities in the letters addressed by the department. The telephone numbers mentioned in the transport documents said to be belonging of the said transport firms were found to be telephone numbers of some other persons. Shri Sajjan....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s of appeal and submitted that the SLP has been filed against the order of the Hon ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals). He also submitted that in view of the discrepancy in the invoices and transport documents, octroi receipts should not have been taken as conclusive of receipt of the materials. He relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case V.K. Enterprises vs. CCE, Panchkula reported in 2010 (249) ELT 462 and the decision in the case of Ranjeev Alloys Limited vs. CCE, Chandigarh reported in 2009 (236) ELT 124 and the decision in the case of HBR Steel Corporation vs.CCE, Ludhiana reported in 2008 (225) ELT 102.   5. Learned Advocate for the respondents submitted that the facts of the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tify the transporter or the driver in respect of the vehicle which was carrying registration number of oil tanker. In respect of other two cases, no such discrepancy was noticed except that the transport firms were not found to be existing in the given addresses. However, it is noticed that the investigation has been conducted in March/April, 2006 whereas the materials were received in the year 2003 by the respondents. No finding that the transport firms were not existing in the given addresses during the relevant period. Under these circumstances, the disallowance of credit in respect of invoice No.223 dated 10.10.2003 and invoice No.224 dated 10.10.2003 may not be justified. However, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in so far as th....