TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (3) TMI 1127
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndation on 02-11-2004. The Appellant continued to file ER-1 return showing receipt of raw materials in the factory and manufacture of finished goods and payment of duty on final products. The fact that the Appellant was not having a factory at the address shown in ER-1 return after 2.11.2004 was detected by the department on 25-05-2005 during a surprise visit. 3. A statement of Shri. Anil Kumar Verma, the proprietor of M/s Ganesh Industries was recorded on 02-06-2005. He stated that he was purchasing raw material from different manufacturers and traders and sending it directly to his unit at Bhivandi and getting goods manufactured on job-work basis and selling the products. The address of his unit was wrongly shown at the old address sol....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....artment but the notice does not mention where the goods were stored. They also contested that there is no requirement of informing the department before sending raw materials for job work. 7. In the reply they did not contest the facts that the goods on which they paid duty were not manufactured at the premises shown in the ER-1 return. There is no contest that the goods manufactured at Bhivandi factory was brought to the factory for which ER-I return was filed. There is no denial of the fact that the inputs were not received in any registered premises and that the finished goods on which duty was paid using the credit so availed had nothing to do with the premises shown in the ER-1 return. No explanation is given for furnishing ER-1 ret....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....deal with the contention that the goods were manufactured at his unit at Bhivadi. It was also contested that once duty is paid on final product Cenvat credit cannot be denied on inputs. 10. Commissioner (Appeal) also did not find any merits in Appellant#s arguments. He also observed in para 4.1 of his order that goods sent for job-work should be cleared from the premises of the job-worker or the factory of person sending the goods for job-work. Either of these conditions in sub-rule 5(a) of Rule 4 of Cenvat Credit Rules has been complied with was not satisfied. He observed in para 4.3 of the order that since the factory itself was not existing, the whole cycle of production of excisable goods is fictitious. He rejected the appeal. 11.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llowing case laws to support their arguments (i) BMA Zinc Pvt Ltd Vs. CCE Jaipur-2005 (191) ELT 792 In this case it was alleged that the inputs copper scrap used for manufacture of copper ingots were alleged to be not received in the factory. Factory was in existence. Final products were manufactured and sold on payment of duty in excess of the credit taken. In the circumstances the Tribunal did not believe the case of the Revenue that ingots were not received in the factory of production. (ii) Vikram Cement Vs. CCE Indore-2006(194) ELT 3 SC This case dealt with the issue whether credit can be denied on explosives used in mines by a cement factory for the reason that the explosives were not used within the factory. (iii) Rail....