TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (8) TMI 424
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rajneesh Agarwal, the second appellant, is an authorised signatory of the first appellant. A total CENVAT credit of Rs. 42,30,415/- has been denied and demanded from the appellant by invoking proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (the Act) on the ground that the first appellant had not received the inputs but has taken the credit of the same during the period from April 2004 to October 2007. Penalty equal to the CENVAT credit denied and demanded has been imposed on the first appellant and penalty has been imposed on the second appellant. Hence these appeals. 2. Even though, today, only stay petitions have been listed, after hearing both sides for quite some time, we found that this is a fit case for grant of waiver o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... unloading the said goods, the same were recorded in raw-materials (input) register and the transportation payment for the said tempos were made in cash being small amount and payment vouchers were signed by the drivers. The time taken for transportation by the said tempos is hardly maximum thirty minutes. These payments were taken into account in accounts record by the cashier and also in ledger of the account books. Accordingly, appellants issued the said PVC Resin in production for manufacture of PVC compound and Master batches and the resultant products were recorded in RG-1 Register which were cleared on payment of duty under proper invoices to various customers. The appellants submit that the different vehicles like trucks, tempo whic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1) GJ-1AV 8222. Thus the remarks to the effect that "Not capable being Bajaj Auto Rickshaw cannot carry the shown quantity of 16 MTs" is not relevant at all (2) As regards DD-03-B-9460, the remarks is that - "Number not existing as vehicle transferred to RTO, Hyderabad on 03.4.2006 while purported transportation shown on 17.7.2006". In this connection, it was submitted that the said vehicle was in Daman who have made local transportations under invoice numbers 183, 184, 185 all dated 17.7.2006 and the payments were made to the drivers by obtaining signatures. Thus, whether it is registered with Hyderabad or Mumbai or Ahmedabad or Daman or Delhi is not relevant to deny the CENVAT credit as the said goods have been received and payment have b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h that PVC resin was physically transported from the registered premises at Daman of SOL and KMPL to the factory of the appellants under respective tempos indicated on the invoices since the distance between the consignment agent premises and the factory of the appellants is hardly 5-7 kilometers which takes only hardly 20 to 30 minutes time for delivery of the goods. However, the adjudicating authority passed the order confirming the show-cause notice without appreciating the evidences produced on record and without granting the cross-examination of the vital witnesses whose statements have been relied upon against the appellants for the sole purpose of confirmation of the show-cause notice who are as under :- &n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....portation, these submissions have escaped consideration totally. Further, in case where only NOC had been issued by RTO as submitted, it cannot be said that the vehicle may not have been used. In such a case, evidence available to the department becomes only submission of the owner without any documentary evidence. Therefore, we find considerable force in the arguments. There was a need for consideration as to whether cross-examination of the owners of the vehicles was required in the context of the facts and circumstances in respect of the each vehicle. Further, since the issue relating to SOL is based on data of logbook and statement of Managing Director of the appellant-company, there was a need for consideration of request for cross-exa....