2012 (1) TMI 119

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....led counter styled as cross objection. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the respondent is engaged in the manufacture of non alloy M.S. Ingot, S.H. No. 7206.90. They availed Cenvat credit. The Department initiated proceedings against the respondent on the ground that the respondent has taken Cenvat credit on inputs of different types of M.S. scraps and sponge iron, from April, 2001 to March, 2003 without bringing the inputs to the factory. Ld. Commr. dropped the proceedings initiated vide four show cause notices. 4. Ld. A.R. appearing for the Department at the outset submitted that while the adjudication proceeding was on ld. Commissioner has got the matter re-investigated by Supdt. relying upon investigation carr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t that their vehicles were not used for sending inputs to factory situated at Dankuni. Ld. A.R. also submitted that the plea taken by the respondent at the time of investigation by Supdt., Anti Evasion that they are having transit godown at Dankuni was never taken up during earlier proceeding is nothing but after thought. The contention is that the respondent could not discharge the onus that the inputs were brought into the factory. In support of his contention he placed reliance on this Tribunal's decision in the case of Viraj Alloys Ltd. v. Commr. of Central Excise, Thane-II reported in 2004 (177) E.L.T. 892 (Tri.-Mumbai). In support of his contention he has placed reliance on Roxy Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Collector of C. Ex. Reported in ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ot have precedentiary value and the facts and circumstances are different because there is only a short distance involved. 9. We have considered the submissions and perused records. Undisputedly the case is built on the premise that the respondent could not discharge the onus as per sub-rule (4) of Rule 7 to show that the inputs were seized in the factory. For convenience of reference, the relevant rules are reproduced hereunder. Sub-rule (1) to Rule 4 The CENVAT credit in respect of inputs may be taken immediately on receipt of the inputs in the factory of the manufacturer. Provided that in respect of final products falling under Chapter 61 or 62 of the First Schedule to the Tariff Act, the CENVAT credit of duty paid on in....