2014 (9) TMI 801

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt, was upheld. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant availed a Cenvat credit of Rs. 8,62,554/- and during audit of the appellant and subsequent verifications, it was observed by the officers that appellant has taken the credit on the basis of extra copy invoices, availed Cenvat credit on capital goods as inputs, availed credit on the basis of invoices which are in the name of appellant's other units and also availed excess credit over and above the admissible credit. 2. Shri Rahul Gajera (Adv.), appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that appellant has got five units at different locations and it does not matter to which unit the Cenvat credit taking document pertains. It was also argued that out of total Cenvat credi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... no documents produced at all, therefore, taking of credit by the appellant is highly irregular. He also emphasized Para 3 of the OIA dated 18-4-2011, where Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld that receipt of goods in the factory has not been established by the appellant. 4. Heard both sides and perused the case records. It is observed from Para 3.2 of the OIO dated 15-3-2010 that credit was proposed to be denied to the appellant for the following discrepancies :- (i)      Availment of Cenvat credit on the basis of extra copy of the invoice as well as on the basis of invoices wherein consignee is other than of assessee i.e. M/s. IDMC Ltd., Unit-I, Anand. (ii)    Availment of Cenvat credit ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the documents. Under Rule 9(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the onus is on the appellant to take appropriate care and satisfy himself properly regarding admissibility of credit before taking the credit. It has also been observed by the first appellate authority in Para 6.2.2 of the OIA dated 18-4-2010 that receipt of goods in the factory premises of the appellant has not been established by the appellant. In view of the above observations, Cenvat credit has been correctly denied by the lower authorities to the appellant, as its receipt and use in the factory of the appellant is not established. The case laws relied upon by the appellant are thus not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. Appeal of the appellant to this....