2017 (5) TMI 282

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....09.2008. 2. The brief facts of the case are that by way of impugned orders, the cenvat credit was denied to the appellant and penalties were imposed on the ground that the vehicle number mentioned in the invoices are not transport vehicle and the transport of the vehicles denied the transportation of goods. The dealers have issued only the invoices are not having godown/registered premises. On the basis of investigation was conducted at the end of M/s Majestic Industries ltd. dated 04.02.2000 to verify that whether the dealer was only issuing invoices or delivering goods alongwith the invoices. At the time of investigation, it was found that there was no stock physical lying in their godown and they have declared for the HR/CR Coils/ She....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., the appellants are before me. 3. As issue involved in all the appeals are common, therefore, all the appeals are disposed of by common order. 4. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that on the basis of investigation conducted against the M/s Majestic Industries Ltd, in the case of M/s A.V. Industries Vide Final Order No. 155/2016-CHD dated 24.02.2016 this Tribunal has allowed the cenvat credit, therefore, impugned orders are required to be set aside.. 5. On the other hand, the Ld. AR opposed the contention of the Ld. Counsel and submits that while remanding matters back to the adjudicating authority vide order dated 22.09.2008, this Tribunal has directed that the burden is on the appellants to prove that duty has been paid ....