2017 (12) TMI 379

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Order-in-Original dated 17.03.2008 was upheld. 2. As per the department's case the appellant/job worker have not received inputs namely Stainless Steel Patta/Patti which was claimed to have used for manufacture of utensils by the job worker on behalf of the appellant. The adjudicating authority relied upon following evidence to hold that the inputs were not received either by the appellant or by the job worker:- (i) Out of 42 invoices involved in the present case, in respect of 32 invoices the Bhilad Check Post of the Rajasthan had given the report that the trucks mentioned in the said invoices were not passed through the said check post which shown that the goods were not transferred from Rajasthan supplier to the job worke....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e denied. He submits that all the suppliers have admittedly in their respective statements stated that the goods have been sold to the appellant as per invoice on which credit was taken. Similarly all the job workers also admitted receipt of the goods on behalf of the appellant except in one case i.e. M/s Ambika Industries who denied receipt of the goods. He further submits that in the entire order emphasis was given that there is a different description of Patta/Patti vis-a-vis SSCR coil. He further submits that in the order it was also contended that the appellant have no facility to manufacture the goods, therefore the CENVAT credit is not admissible as entire manufacturing was done by the job worker. He submits that since the input was ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... i.e. Patta/Patti is different from the goods mentioned in the invoice i.e. SSCR coils. For this reason the goods mentioned in the invoice were not received at the job worker premises. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. I find that the Revenue had relied on the report of Bhilad Sales Tax Check Post wherein it was recorded that the truck mentioned in the 32 invoices were not passed through the check post. On the contrary the appellant had produced 19 numbers of Octroi receipts of Mumbai Octroi Check Post that the same trucks were entered into Maharashtra. The report of Bhilad Check Post is not supported by any other record. Regarding the Octroi receipt it was produced by the appellant before the adjudicatin....