TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (8) TMI 1065
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....010 dated 23.04.2010 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) of Central Excise & Servcie Tax, Ranchi as first appellate authority. 2. Shri A.Roy, Supdt.(AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that M/s.Ashok Electrical Stamping Pvt.Ltd., from whom the capital goods were received by the Respondent M/s.Super Smelters Ltd.(Unit-2), were not having any infrastructure for the manufacture of capital goods on which Appellant has taken Cenvat Credit. That the photographs of the capital goods found in the premises of the Appellant was bearing identification marks Ashok Electricals rather than supplier s name Ashok Electrical Stamping Pvt.Ltd. That the capital goods found in the premises were not possessing any mark, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i) Dhakad Metal Corpn., M/s.Bhavna Metal Company v. CCE & ST, Daman [2015-TIOL-1520-CESTAT-AHM] (iii) SMI Electrowire Pvt.Ltd. v. CCE, Delhi-II [2015 (322) ELT 447 (P & H)] (iv) Prayagraj Dyeing & Printing Mills Pvt.Ltd. v. Union of India [2013 (290) ELT 61 (Guj.)] 3.2 Learned Advocate made the Bench go through para 18 & 19 of the Order-in-Original dated 29.01.2010 to argue that photocopies of the machineries received from the supplier were made available to department and the capital goods were installed in their factory premises. That anti-evasion party of the department also visited their plant and found the said machinery in running condition, which was duly mentioned in the Officer s Inspection Report. It was also argued by the le....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ds, with the supplier. On a specific query from the Bench whether Respondent had the knowledge that supplier of the goods was not having any facility of manufacture, learned AR could not bring to the notice of the Bench any such statement/documents conveying that the Respondent had such knowledge. 6. It is observed that CESTAT, Ahmedabad Bench in the case of M/s.Dhakad Metal Corporation, M/s. Bhavna Metal Company v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Daman (supra) under similar facts passed the following observations.:- "6. Heard both sides and perused the case records. The issue involved in the present appeals is whether appellant M/s. Dhakad Metal Corporation is eligible to credit on the basis of documents which are claimed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xtended, the statements of such persons cannot be relied upon as evidence. It is also observed that Revenue has not contested with any documentary evidence to show that M/s. Dhakad Metal had knowledge that the inputs received alongwith invoices, at the time of taking credit, was from M/s. Prasun Ferro Alloys & Metal Casting Pvt. Limited who had no facility for manufacturing such inputs. In the above factual matrix, appellant M/s. Dhakad Metal Corporation cannot be held to have any mala fide intention to take wrong credit and extended period of demand cannot be invoked in the present case against them. In this case, the demand is for the period 2005-06 whereas the show cause notice was issued on 20-2-2009. As the extended period is not invok....