TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (1) TMI 72
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., for the Respondent. ORDER Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue has filed the present appeals, which are being disposed of by a common order as they arise out of the same impugned orders. 2. After hearing both the sides, I find that M/s. Ashoka Steel Corporation and M/s. Thour Steel Industries are the registered dealers, who had issued cenvatable ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....crutinised and identical belief was entertained. 4. On the above basis, proceedings were initiated against the respondent culminating into an order passed by original adjudicating authority. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the same. Hence the present appeals. 5. Shri Ravi Kant, partner of M/s. Ashoka Steel Corporation, in his statement had clearly deposed that he was ta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y "sale parties " but when the said sale parties were conducted, they refused to having received any material from M/s. Thour Steel. Further the Revenue has also not taken any action against the said sale parties, in which case the statement of Shri Kewal Krishan cannot be relied upon. 6. I have also further taken into consideration that all manufacturing units in their statement have ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that they only received cenvatable invoices without corresponding receipt of the inputs is only assumptive. 8. I also agree with the Commissioner (Appeals) reasoning that the Revenue has not shown any alternate source of procurement of raw material. Admittedly the manufacturing units have consumed the raw material and have shown the production of their final product, which was cleared on pay....