TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 826
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld.Advocate appearing for the Respondents. 2. As per the facts on record respondent is engaged in the manufacture of MS ingots falling under chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, and were availing benefit of Cenvat credit of duty paid on the inputs. 3. It is seen that certain investigations were conducted at the end of the first stage dealer M/s.M.K. Steels, from whom the appellant had purchased the inputs and had availed the Cenvat credit based upon the invoices issued by the said M/s.M.K.Steels. the statements of the representative of the said dealer, made the Revenue to believe that the said dealer was issuing fake invoices without the corresponding supply of the goods. Shri Sunil Kr. Gupta, proprietor of the said dealer in his ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t is taken out of consideration, no evidence survives with the Revenue for holding against the assessee. He has further observed that the appellant had admittedly availed the credit based upon the invoices issued by M/s.M.K.Steels, who was duly registered with the department. The provisions of rule 9(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 require an assessee manufacturer to identify and find out the correct address of the person, who has supplied the inputs. The said address being given on the invoice, the appellant can be said to have taken requisite reasonable steps. In the present case there is no dispute about the identity of the seller, who is also registered with the department and as such no contravention of the provisions of rule 9(3) can....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as drawn my attention to precedent decision in the case of M/s.Om Shakti Smelters Pvt.Ltd. v. CCE, Kolkata wherein vide Final Order No.FO/77298/2017 dated 29.08.2017, the input credit stands disallowed to the appellant in respect of the inputs received from M/s.M.K.Steels, based upon the same set of facts and circumstances. 9. On going through the impugned order of Commissioner(Appeals) I find that the same is a detailed order, dealing with each and every legal issue. The appellate authority has relied upon various precedent decisions of identical nature. There is no dispute about the fact that the payments for the inputs were made by the appellant by way of cheques. It is also not the Revenue s case that the consideration, which flows to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has held that a manufacturer is entitled to take the credit on the basis of the invoices issued by the first stage dealer, even when it is established that the manufacturer has issued fake invoices in the name of the dealer. It may be noted here that in the present case also, the suppliers of inputs were made by the same registered dealer M/s. M.K.Steels and the Revenue sought to deny the credit based upon the same investigations and same evidences. The said decision stands upheld by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Commr. Of C.Ex., Cus.& Service Tax vs. Juhi Alloys Ltd. [2014(302) E.L.T. 487(All.)]. On the similar fact the decision of the Tribunal in the case Dhakad Metal Corporation vs. Commr. Of C.Ex, & S.T., Daman[2015(33....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed as an evidence for denial of the credit when payments were made by cheques. g) Further, the Tribunal in a recent decision in the case of ANJ Metal Recycling Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commr. Of C.Ex., Chandigarh [2016(337) E.L.T. 453 (Tri.-Chan.)] has extended the benefit of cenvat credit to the appellant therein by observing that as per Rule 9(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the assessee is required to ensure that the inputs supplied by the dealer were accompanied with the documents and on production of such invoice, the requirements of Rule-9(3) get satisfied and it is for the Revenue to produce sufficient material evidence on record to show that the dealer who had issued the invoices were non-existence and were non-registered with the depar....