TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (11) TMI 1244
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of 2010 - Ex (SM) , Excise Appeal No. 3469 of 2010 - Ex (SM) , Excise Appeal No. 3470 of 2010 - Ex (SM) , Excise Appeal No. 3471 of 2010 - Ex (SM) , Excise Appeal No. 3472 of 2010 - Ex (SM) , Excise Appeal No. 3474 of 2010 - Ex (SM) , Excise Appeal No. 3475 of 2010 - Ex (SM) , Excise Appeal No. 3701 -3703 of 2010 - Ex (SM) , Excise Appeal No. 3952 of 2010 - Ex (SM) , Excise Appeal No. 3953 - 3955 of 2010 - Ex (SM) , Excise Appeal No. 478 - 480 of 2011 - Ex (SM) , Excise Appeal No. 492 of 2011 - Ex (SM) , Excise Appeal No. 559 - 561 of 2011 - Ex (SM) , Excise Appeal No. 562 - 564 of 2011 - Ex (SM) , Excise Appeal No. 565 - 567 of 2011 - Ex (SM) , Excise Appeal No. 568 - 570 of 2011 - Ex (SM) , Excise Appeal No. 571 - 573 of 2011 - Ex (SM) , Excise Appeal No. 574 - 576 of 2011 - Ex (SM) , Excise Appeal No. 580 - 582 of 2011 - Ex (SM) , Excise Appeal No. 583- 585 of 2011 - Ex (SM) , Excise Appeal No. 586- 588 of 2011 - Ex (SM) , Excise Appeal No. 589- 591 of 2011 - Ex (SM) , Excise Appeal No. 595- 597 of 2011 - Ex (SM) , Excise Appeal No. 598- 600 of 2011 - Ex (SM) , Excise Appeal No. 601- 603 of 2011 - Ex (SM) , Excise Appeal No. 604- 606 of 2011 - Ex (SM) , Excise Appeal No. 607- 60....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....idharth Baid and Shri Rahul Baid. 5. As the issue involved in all the appeals is common, therefore all the appeals are taken up together for consideration and disposed of by a common order. 6. The facts of the case are that an investigation was conducted at the premises of M/s. Arihanta Metal Co.(AMCo), M/s. Arihanta Metal Corpn. (AMCorpn). It was revealed in the investigation that M/s. AMCo. & AMCorpn. are procuring brass circles, brass strips from M/s. Agarwal Metal Co. / Works who were the manufacturer of the same against duty paid invoices and thereafter M/s. AMCo. & AMCorpn are issuing invoices to various manufacturer buyers showing the description of goods as brass sheets without supplying the goods. M/s. AMCo. & AMCorpn. paid certain amounts towards duty payable on account of inadmissible Cenvat credit availed by manufacturer buyer during investigation itself. Thereafter, various show cause notices were issued to the manufacturer buyers, M/s. AMCo., M/s. AMCorpn. Shri Sidharth Baid and Shri Rahul Baid for denial of inadmissible Cenvat credit availed by manufacturer of buyers. Consequently duty on that account along with interest were demanded and proposing penalties to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the case of CCE vs. Delhi Control Device [2013 (200) ECR 340] in similar set of facts, this Tribunal has observed as under: "3. The Revenue's contention is that the evidence on record reveals that the registered dealer never received the 'brass sheet' inasmuch as M/s. Agarwal was not manufacturing the 'brass sheet'. There is no denial of the fact that the description of the goods was mentioned in the invoices issued by the registered dealer as only 'brass sheet' and the same stands reflected by the appellant in their statutory records. The same have also been used in the manufacture of final products, on which duty has been paid by them. As such, I find no justifiable reasons to interfere in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Revenue's appeal is rejected." Therefore, the Cenvat credit disallowed to the manufacturer buyer in the impugned proceedings be set aside. Consequently, demands of duty along with interest are not sustainable and penalties on all the manufacturer buyers are not sustainable. 12. On behalf of the M/s. AMCo. & AMCorpn., Shri Rahul Baid and Shri Sidharth Baid, it is submitted that Revenue has not adduced any evidence for non receipt ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the Revenue to allege that manufacturer buyers have received the invoices only but have not received the goods against these invoices. No investigation has been done at the end of transporter or check post to ascertain the facts against the impugned invoices, the manufacturer buyers had received goods or not. Moreover, no other corroborative evidence has been produced by the Revenue from where these goods i.e. brass sheets procured by manufacturer buyers. In the absence of any corroborative evidence, the Cenvat credit to manufacturer buyer cannot be denied. As the revenue has failed to prove the fact that these brass sheets have been clandestinely procured by the manufacturer buyer, therefore relying on the decision of Omex Auto Ltd. vs. CCE, Delhi III reported in [2012 (280) ELT 440 (Tri-Del)] wherein this Tribunal has observed as under: "6. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both sides, I find that the short issue involved in this case is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellants are entitled to take cenvat credit on the strength of invoices where the goods described as C.R. Sheets instead of H.R. sheets or not? It is an....