TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (11) TMI 309
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ngh, Advocate for the respondent. 3. As per the facts on record M/s. Parmatma Singh Jatinder Alloys Pvt. Ltd. is engaged in the manufacture of non alloy steel ingots product falling under chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They were availing the benefit of modvat credit of duty paid on the inputs. The dispute in the present proceedings relate to the modvat credit of Rs. 87,447/- availed on the basis of invoices issued by the registered dealer M/s. Amit Steel Traders. 4. As per the Revenue, the investigation conducted revealed that the vehicle nos. mentioned in the invoices issued by the registered dealer were fake and fictitious inasmuch as the transport company named in the invoices was found to be non exist....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se that the goods were diverted to some SSI unit is based upon assumption and presumption and no identity of any such SSI unit stand disclosed by the Revenue. As such they submitted that there being no evidence as regards diversion of the inputs and there being no dispute, the denial of credit was neither justified nor warranted and Commissioner (Appeals) has taken a correct decision by setting aside the order of the original adjudicating authority. 7. As regards the vehicle nos. being wrong or the transporter being not in existence, they have submitted that the goods were purchased from the registered dealers, though on ex-godown basis, it is the dealer who arranges the transport vehicle for the goods. The buyer makes payment towar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sing fake GR of transporter which does not exist. The allegation is that the appellants took cenvat credit amounting to 87,447/- fraudulently without actual receipt of the same in their factory but no corroborative evidence has been brought on record by the department to prove that the said goods were actually diverted by the appellant to other units in respect of which no investigation was caused. The departmental investigation is directed only towards transportation of goods to the appellant's premises. The case has been made out on the ground that the transport companies whose GR's were produced by the appellants in this regard were found to be non-existence and the vehicle no. shown in invoices/GR's were found to be of non-transport veh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on the dealer. 10. The Revenue has reiterated the same very reasoning adopted by the original adjudicating authority for denial of credit. It is seen that apart from the wrong vehicle numbers, there is virtually no other evidence available on record to reflect upon the fact that the inputs were not actually received by the respondent and were diverted to the other SSI units. The observation of the original adjudicating authority as regards diversion of the inputs is based on conjectures and surmises inasmuch as there is virtually no evidence on record showing such diversion. Further, the appellants have also entered the said inputs in their RG-23A Part-I records and have shown the consumption of the same for manufacture of the fina....