TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (7) TMI 648
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... availed the CENVAT credit tot eh tune of Rs. 93,531/-. Certain investigations were carried out at the end of M/s. Majestic Industries Ltd. and the same extended to the supply of the coils under the cover of the said 3 invoices on the basis of which the appellants had taken the credit. The Revenue made investigations with the transporters and found that the address of two transporters were fake and fictitious and as such their statements could not be recorded. In one case, the statement of the owner was recorded, wherein he deposed that the goods were not transported by him to the appellants premises. 2. On the above basis, Revenue initiated the proceedings against the appellants for denial of CENVAT credit, for which purpose, a Show Caus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... transporters were not found at the addresses given by them in RTO authorities, on the basis of which, Revenue entertained a view that such transporters were fake and fictitious. However, it is seen that RTO authorities clarified that No Objection Certificate has been issued to the said truck number for the area Palampur in respect of one truck. As such, the existence of the truck cannot be doubted. Merely because the address of the transporters was not either found to be correct or the transporter was found not available at the same address by no stretch of imagination can be held to be a factor leading to the inevitable conclusion that the transporter is fake and fictitious and as such the services were not utilised for movement of the in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y gate. I also find further note that the payment of all the inputs were made by the appellants through cheques and there is neither any allegation nor any evidence on record that the money corresponding to the cheque amount stands flown back to the assessee. Admittedly, the appellants have shown the utilisation of the inputs in the manufacture of their final product, which has to be cleared on payment of duty. As such, admittedly, the appellants required inputs for the manufacture of the final product. Revenue has neither made any allegation nor produced on record any evidence to show that the said requisite inputs were obtained by the appellants from any other alternate source. In this scenario, the Revenue's allegation as regards non-r....