TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 137
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, Ghamela, Gurmala/Trowel, Chiesal, Pulley, Rake, Shoevel, Karni, Wrecking Bar etc. The appellant procured certain inputs and availed Cenvat Credit thereon and final goods have been exported by the appellants either through merchant exporters or in their own name. The appellants availed Cenvat Credit on inputs used in the manufacturing of their final goods and also availed rebate of duty excise paid on the goods exported. The investigation was conducted on 15.11.2006 and certain records were resumed. On the basis of scrutinized records, it was alleged that as the appellants are not having facility to manufacture the goods, therefore, they are not entitle to claim rebate of duty on excise paid on the goods exported and also not entitled to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ufacturing capability of the firm was duly verified by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, National Institute of Technology in 2008. He further submitted that the central excise staff during the course of visit has verified the machinery installed and list of machinery was prepared and the same is placed on record. The premise was again visited on 28.06.2007 and verified the machinery installed. The appellants also furnished Chartered Accountant Certificate certifying that they have not purchased any machinery after inspection/visit except Air-conditioner/Refrigerator. The goods exported were manufactured out of the same set of machines verified by visiting staff. He further submitted that audit of the appellants was conducted upto March, 2006 and there is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Sikka Forgings Pvt. Ltd. there is no production figures of M/s Sikka Forgings Pvt. Ltd. reflected in the chart and also in the show cause notice. Further, neither nature of raw material used nor the manufacturing processes undertaken by M/s Sikka Forgings Pvt. Ltd. & M/s Ambay International qua appellants has not been brought on records. Therefore, the statement of M/s Sikka Forgings Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Ambay International are not relevant to the facts of the case. He further submitted that there is no dispute regarding export of the goods by the appellants and the Revenue has failed to bring on record that if the goods have not been manufactured then how the goods were exported by the appellants. He further submitted that without prejudice ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....olt itself is complete finish excisable goods and cannot be treated as input for manufacturing forged and cast items shown to have been manufactured by the appellants. The items manufactured are broadly classified either as Hand Tools or Garden Tools Or Hardware Goods besides MS Scrap which has been declared as generated/manufactured during the course of manufacture of said goods. The said goods can be manufactured either by way of casting or forging and they had not manufactured any castings items as no machines were there during the course of visit and it is also submitted that for casting and forging, furnish is basic requirement for the unit and for forging, power hammering is essential required. In fact, these machines were not install....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to the appellants and as they have not manufactured exported goods. They have fraudulently availed the Cenvat Credit, therefore, impugned order is to be upheld. 7. Heard both the sides and considered the submissions. 8. On careful consideration of submissions made by both the sides, we find that the core issue before us is that whether the appellants have manufactured the goods in question in their factory or not? 9. We have to see on the basis of the evidence available on records whether appellants are having manufacturing facility in the factory or not? In support of the claim, the appellants have relied on the Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, National Institute of Technology certificate certifying that the appellants having manufacturing facility.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....having D.C. power backup capacity. Further, the appellants filing regular ER-3 returns and same has not been disputed. Moreover, the goods sold through merchant exporters have been returned back under ARE-1 and same has been enter after due verification by the Range Officers. All these evidences show that appellants are having manufacturing facility of the impugned goods and the same was not disputed during the period in question. 12. On the contrary, the allegation of the Revenue is that the appellants are not having manufacturing facility in their factory, therefore, goods have not been manufactured by them but the fact which is an admitted fact that the goods in question have been exported by the appellants. Therefore, the burden of pro....