TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 130
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....found that the appellant received copper wire rods and ingots from the registered dealer M/s. Pranav Metal Mart, Noida. It is found during the investigation that such copper rods, ingots were never reached the premises of the registered manufacturers located at Nadiad. So, the proceedings were initiated against the appellant and others on the basis that theyt availed cenvat credit on the basis of invoices issued by registered dealer M/s. Pranav Metal Mart, without receiving the goods. A show cause notice dated 29.11.2007 was issued to the appellants, proposing demand of duty alongwith interest and to impose penalties. The adjudicating authority confirmed demand of cenvat credit of Rs. 16,89,635/- alongwith interest and imposed penalty of eq....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessees had also purchased ingots from the same registered dealer M/s. Pranav Metal Mart. 4. On the other hand, the learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue submits that the present case is distinguishable from the case law relied upon by the learned Advocate. He submits that in the present case, it is revealed from the adjudication order that the adjudicating authority had proceeded on the basis of transport documents of M/s. Pranav Metal Mart and the vehicles shown to have not been used for transportation of the goods. 5. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, I find from the order of Commissioner (Appeals) that on the basis of DGCEI investigation several show cause notices were issued to various manufac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce on record. On the contrary, the assessee has produced ample evidence in the shape of documentary record to reflect upon the fact that they had actually received the inputs from the first dealer and had made payments to them through Demand Draft. In any case, the fact of non-stamping of LR is only in respect of the goods received by the registered dealer. As rightly observed by the original adjudicating authority, the same would not reflect upon the fact of non-receipt of the inputs by the appellant from the dealer inasmuch as the dealer might have supplied the inputs obtained by him from other source." The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court upheld the above order of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Dhanlaxmi Tubes & Metal Industries (supra). T....