2015 (11) TMI 699

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t, 1985. The appellant avails cenvat credit in respect of central excise duty paid on the inputs used in or in relation to manufacture of the aforementioned final product. For disputed period, Central Excise Range Officials verified the records maintained by the appellant and found that cenvat credit has been taken by the appellant based on the invoices issued by M/s Bhagwati Trading Company and M/s Ayushi Steel Company (P) Ltd. Faridabad. Further, investigations carried out in the place of the above suppliers reveal that those suppliers have passed on inadmissible cenvat credit to various manufacturers including the appellants without actually supplying/ delivering the goods. The Jurisdictional Range Superintendent intimated the appellant ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ty attributable to the final product are adjusted from the cenvat credit taken on such input services. He, further submits that the disputed goods have been received from M/s Bhagwati Trading Company & M/s Ayushi Steel Company under proper and valid duty paying documents and that upon receipt of the disputed goods in the factory, the receipt particulars have been duly entered in the prescribed cenvat record i.e. RG-23A Part-I and Part-II register. The Ld. Counsel further submits that the appellant had also maintained other records to prove that the goods have actually been received in the factory. Further, the Ld. Advocate also submits that the payment particulars regarding supply of goods have been duly reflected in the ledger account main....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rian) Pvt. Ltd., Jamuna Nagar are the main customers". Further, in the statement recorded on 16.03.2006, pursuant to the query of the Department as to who are the parties to whom the trading firms M/s Bhagwati, Ayusi Steel and Om Iron & Steel have issued the bills; Mr. Bansal had furnished the information, where the name of the appellant was not finding the place. 6. I find that no iota of credible evidence has been brought on record to prove non-receipt of goods by the appellant. Though, the statements recorded from outside agencies have been relied on for confirmation of the duty demand, but the same nowhere stated the name of the appellant that only the invoices have been issued to it, without supplying the disputed goods. Hence, in m....