TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (2) TMI 130
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r Chapter 54. The main Respondent had availed CENVAT credit on the strength of invoices issued by one of the Respondent M/s Orange Polymers Ltd., Surat (OPL); M/s OPL, Surat were registered with the Central Excise department as registered dealer. The second main Respondent M/s OPL were situated nearly on the same premises. It is the case of the Revenue that the invoices issued by OPL did not contain the details as required under the provisions of Rule 9(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Accordingly, the investigation was started. After detailed investigation, show cause notice was issued to the main Respondent for denial of CENVAT credit on various allegations. The said show cause notice was contested by the main Respondent and M/s OPL on merits as well as on limitation. The adjudicating authority after following the due process of law confirmed the demand of CENVAT credit as being liable to main Respondent M/s Tejus along with interest and also imposed penalty on them; imposed penalty of equivalent to second Respondent M/s OPL along with various other penalties and imposed penalty on the individual of equivalent amount . All the Respondents preferred appeal before the first appella....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat even the monthly returns filed by the main Respondent did not indicate that they are eligible for CENVAT credit. It is also his submission that the main person i.e Rajiv Gupta, Director of M/s OPL could not produce returns filed by them for various quarters. It is his submission that M/s Tejus has not paid the consideration for the moment and they have been paid partly by cash and partly by book adjustment which has shown that there was wrong in the entire transaction. It is his submission that the first appellate authority is totally in error in holding that that order-in-original is incorrect. 4. Ld. Counsel Shri Willingdon Christian for the Respondents draws my attention to the facts and circumstances of the record and submits that the manufacturer of inputs M/s OPL, Nandurbar had factory and were manufacturing and registered wit the authorities during the relevant time and such genuinity is not disputed M/s OPL, Nandurbar had failed to pay the duty on the goods cleared by them and filed monthly returns with the authorities. Thus the statements recorded by Revenue are inculpatory and are absolutely exculpatory. The invoices on which CENVAT was availed were issued by regis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) No payment was made to M/s Orange by the applicant against the said receipt of Grey fabris. (v) CENVAT credit was passed on @ 35% instead of applicable rate of 8% at the material time by the supplier to the Appllant. (iv) Shri Tejus R. Kapadia in his capacity as proprietor of the appellant unit and Executive Director of M/s Orange Polymrs Ltd. was the key person in the entire episode. 5.6 I accordingly find that the following central issues are required to be decided in this case: (i) What are the conditions to avail CENVAT credit on inputs. (ii) What are the responsibilities of the purchaser of inputs to make them eligible to avail CENVAT credit, (iii) What are the responsibilities of the supplier of the inputs and issuer of CENVAT credit. After reproducing the above mentioned issue involved, the first appellate authority has specifically dealt with each issue independently. 7. While dealing with issue No.1 which is reproduced herein above and after going through the provisions of Rule 4 of Cenvat Credit Rules,2004 he specifically states as under: I have gone through the invoices on the basis of which the CENVAT credit ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....so required to maintain records regarding receipt of inputs and other relevant documents. In this case, the proprietor of the appellant unit, also co-appellant in this appeal, was also Director of the supplier company and accordingly, it is beyond dispute that the appellant unit has fulfilled their obligation as such with regard to taking reasonable step to satisfy above the identity and address of the manufacturer or supplier. I have gone through Copy of ER-1 return of January 2007 filed by the Appellant, wherein 1315638.75 Mtrs of Grey Fabrics is shown as received. I have also gone through the Copy of ER -1 return of M/s Organge Polymers, Navapur, Maharasthra for January 2007 showing clearing of Grey Fabric 92095.06 kg valued at Rs. 43964533/- duly acknowledged by the Jurisdictional Range Officer. The appellant have further undertaken with regard to the difference in quantity shown in ER -1 of M/s Tejus and M/s Orange that the Grey Fabric that the quality of fabric supplied to M/s Tejus was 14.29 mtrs per kg. On computation, as such, I do not find that such facts, though very much present before the investigating officers as well as before the Ld. Adjudicating Authority,....