2016 (6) TMI 462

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rried the goods to the factory and from the factory to the appellant. During the investigation, statements of other players were also recorded, who gave the contradictory statement. The original adjudicating authority dropped the demand. The Revenue reviewed the said order and Commissioner (Appeals) reversed the order of the original adjudicating authority. The Commissioner (Appeals) in his order examined the evidences and allowed the appeal after coming to the conclusion that "the balance of convenience is in favour of the Revenue." Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants are in appeal before this Tribunal. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the entire case of Revenue is based on the statements of the transporters and ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ils of the truck no. available on the invoices clearly indicate that the services of transporter was used. 3. Learned AR relied on the impugned order. He argued that the supplier of the goods namely, M/s Panna Synthetics, who had issued the invoices were investigated in many other cases and they are not traceable anymore. 4. I have gone through the rival contentions. I find that the entire case is based on the Alert Circular No. 4/2005 issued on 13.10.2005 and on statements of the transporters; Directors of the appellant company; Shri Sanjay Agarwal, proprietor of CHA firm; Shri C.P. Krishna Mohan, proprietor of M/s Master Logistics and Shri Paresh Kumar Chalodiya, who was claimed to be intermediary in the purchase of fabrics. The Com....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cular was issued that any Central Excise invoice bearing name, address and Registration No. of M/s Panna Synthetics should be treated as bogus and any CENVAT Credit availed/rebate claimed by any body on the strength of such invoices should be treated as improper. I also find that ample opportunities were given to the respondent to come up with all the documentary invoices. However, everybody failed to do so and thereby, they were unable to prove that the deal was carried out. Further, the Revenue argued that the main allegation about the wrong availement of CENVAT Credit taken by M/s BTIPL on the basis of bogus invoices and without receipt of the goods on the said goods have neither been discussed nor proved about the receipt of the goods b....