TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (8) TMI 589
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... matter travelled to Tribunal, through Commissioner (Appeals) and vide their decision reported as M/s.Ashok Leyland Vs. CCE, Chennai - 2005 (191) ELT 277 (Tri.-Chen.), the appeal was disposed of as under:- "Since the inputs in question are available with the assessee, the decision in the case of Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. applies to the present case. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed after setting aside the impugned order. We, however, make it clear that revenue is at liberty to raise fresh demand in the event of inputs being removed or being not available." 2. As is seen from the earlier decision of the Tribunal, it was observed that Revenue is at liberty to raise fresh demand in the event of inputs being removed by the assessee. Rev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rts in various quantity) from the stores to assembly lines. When they were asked to produce the concerned input documents, it was replied that the same could not be traced out and produced. In respect of the concerned issue slips and the document correlating the consumption of the said parts, for the period 1996-2005, it was informed that they do not keep the issue slips and requisition slips beyond 2 years and expressed their inability to produce the basic documents showing the purchase/issue/consumption of the said parts, the factual position or genuineness of their claim, that the stock of other part numbers, in question, was re-issued for manufacture, could neither be proved by themselves nor be verified by the department. Thus, the ver....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... this regard to be re-credited to the appellant." 5. As is clear from the above, demand has been confirmed against the appellant on the finding that they have not been able to establish the possession of written off inputs as directed by the Tribunal in the first round of litigation. On being questioned, Ld. Advocate fairly agrees that the appellant does not have requisition slips or issuance slips in their possession so as to establish that the disputed inputs were used by them in the manufacture of final products. There cannot be any doubt to the legal issue that such establishment is required to be done by the appellant himself as the onus is upon him. When the factual verification of inputs was conducted by the Revenue only 31 part nos....