TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 764
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nfirmed against the assessee-appellant along with imposition of equivalent amount of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Besides, the impugned order has also imposed penalties on the other appellants namely, Shri Rajneesh Agarwal, Shri Mukesh Sangla and M/s AVM Brothers under Rule 26 of rules. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order, the above appellants have filed appeals before the Tribunal. The Revenue is also in appeal before the Tribunal, against dropping of demand of Rs. 1,27,29,183/- by the ld. adjudicating authority. 2. The Brief facts of the case are that based upon search by the officers of Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence, Regional Unit, Indore, the asessee-appellant was issued with the Show Cause Notice dated 05.05.2009 on the ground that it had received only invoices, without accompanying goods i.e. plastic granules from M/s Signet Overseas Ltd (SOL) and associates and availed Cenvat credit, based on such invoices. The statement of Transporters, employees of M/s SOL and its records were relied upon to make such allegations. It was also alleged that on enquiry from the office ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....peal against setting aside of demand of Rs. 1,27,29,183/- on the ground that assessee-appellant had availed said credit fraudulently without receipt of goods. Reliance was placed upon the statement of employees of M/s Signet Overseas Ltd. and records maintained by said company and also statement of transporter Shri Vishal Agarwal. Shri Vishal Agarwal in his statement has stated that the bilty for transportation were issued after talking to drivers over phone. We find that the assessee-appellant had sought cross examination of main transporter and all other transporters, whose vehicles were used for transportation of goods to its factory premises. However, the request was rejected by the adjudicating authority. The assessee-appellant also challenged the authenticity of computer data of laptops seized from employees of M/s SOL. It has been contended that nothing incriminatory was found from its factory and demand cannot be made against it, by relying upon third party statements and records. The adjudicating authority has held that the demands made on the basis of third party statements and records i.e. employees of M/s SOL are not sustainable. He also found that the assessee-appellan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unal, we are of the view that there is no merits in the appeal filed by the Revenue. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. 9. Further, a demand of Rs. 18,85,971/- was confirmed against the assessee-appellant on the ground that the vehicle shown to have transported the goods were not capable of such transportation being tankers, tempos, auto rickshaw and in two cases, were moped and scooter. The assessee-appellant had submitted a chart before the adjudicating authority, showing that the numbers of vehicles were wrongly mentioned and also furnished the correct numbers, which are as under: VEHICLE NUMBER ALLEGED IN SCN CORRECT TRUCK NUMBERS MP09KC3444 AUTO MP09KC8444 MP09KC3444 AUTO MP09KC8444 MP09KC3444 AUTO MP09KC8444 MP09KC3444 AUTO MP09KC8444 MP09KC3444 AUTO MP09KC8444 MP09KC3444 AUTO MP09KC8444 MP09KC3444 AUTO MP09KC8444 MP09KB4940 AUTO MP09KB6940 MP09KB4940 AUTO MP09KB6940 MP09KB4940 AUTO MP09KB6940 MP09KB4940 AUTO MP09KB6940 MP09K-3433 TRACTOR MP09KD3423 MP09KD4448 AUTO ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... investigation by the Department, allegations cannot be made that the raw materials were not received in the factory for use in the intended purpose. He further stated that the goods were physically transported to the factory of the asessee-appellant and were actually used in the manufacture of finished products. Hence, denial of cenvat credit is baseless and not maintainable under law. We find that the receipt of inputs has been denied only on the ground of the vehicles were not capable of transportation of goods. The receipt of inputs has not been disputed, nor has any other corroborative evidence been brought on record by the Department to sustain the charges. The assessee had provided the correct number of vehicles and also some of the addresses of owners were also provided. In that case, the same could have been verified. The cross examination of transporters were rejected. The records of the assessee-appellant showed the receipt of inputs and their consumption, which has not been disputed by the Department. The final products which have been cleared on payment of duty are not in dispute. The Revenue has also failed to prove flow back of money for non-receipt of the goods. In ....