2017 (5) TMI 508

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ushi Steels Company Pvt. Ltd. that they are only issuing cenvatable invoices to avail inadmissible cenvat credit on the strength of invoice issued by them. Thereafter, the factory of the appellant was also visited and Sh. Parmod Kumar, Authorized Signatory stated that they were procured some invoices to avail inadmissible cenvat credit. He stated that he did not know whether they received the material or not alongwith the invoice. He further stated that the impugned invoices which are irregular on which they have taken inadmissible cenvat credit, they have reversed the credit. The statement has recorded thereon. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant to deny cenvat credit, consequently, to demand duty along with interes....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Shri. Parmod Kumar, Authorized Representative of the appellant to say that as it is admission on the part of Sh. Parmod Kumar that they have received invoices to avail inadmissible cenvat credit and the cenvat credit has been reversed. In that circumstances, the impugned order is to be upheld. 5.  He further submits that all the cases relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant are having different facts, therefore, the same cannot be relevant of the fact of this case. 6.  Heard both the sides and considered the submissions. 7.  On careful consideration submissions made by both the sides, I find that in the facts and circumstances of the case are that the cenvat credit can be denied to the appellant or not. If ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....re, in those set of facts the charges were dropped but the said facts are not applicable to the facts of this case. Further, in the case of Super Trading Company (Supra), Shri. Amit Kumar, Proprietor of the company had stated that they have received the goods from M/s Ayushi Steels Company Pvt. Ltd. which were being transported in truck/tempo and the cost of the freight used to be included in the value of the goods. As in the case of Super Trading Company (Supra) also there is no admission on the part of the appellant that theyhave not received the goods. Further, in the case of M/s Victoria Tools Engineers P. Ltd. , the facts of the case are that it is not clear whether the statement of the respondent has been recorded or not. The case has....