TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (8) TMI 978
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Bansal, D.R. ORDER PER: RACHNA GUPTA Present is an appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) bearing No. BHO-EXCUS-002-APP-466-17-18 dated 16.02.2018 dated 16th February, 2018 vide which the appellant has been denied to avail the Cenvat Credit based on supplementary invoices issued by the manufacturer. 2. The appellant is the manufacturer of cement and clinker falling under Chapter ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nge herein. Hence the present appeal. 3. We have heard Shri Rahul Tangri, ld. Advocate for the appellant and Shri S.K. Bansal, ld. D.R. for the Department. 4. The appellant has impressed upon that similar matter has already been decided by the Division Bench of this Tribunal in Birla Corporation Ltd. vs. CGST, Jabalpur, Final Order No. 52486/2018 dated 3rd July, 2018 and same has been followed b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(1) (b). Since the appellant has failed to ascertain the same, the alleged suppression and collusion cannot be ruled out. Resultantly, Rule 9 (1) (b), the permission in first part thereof cannot be extended in favour of the appellant. Appeal is accordingly, prayed to be rejected. 6. After hearing both the parties and perusing the decisions as impressed upon, we observe that the similar line of ar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on part of the appellant. Above all, the supplementary invoice has been issued by the Coal Companies which are the undertakings of the Government of India, there can be no presumption, unless rebutted, of any alleged suppression or collusion. The observations from the Tribunal decision in that case are reproduced below:- "7. Having considered the rival contentions of both the sides, we take no....