TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (9) TMI 1580
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etitioner (s) : MR PARESH M DAVE(260) ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) 1. These tax appeals arise in common background. They would be disposed of by this common order. For convenience, we may notice facts from Tax Appeal No.1088 of 2018. 2. Assessee is in appeal against the judgment of the Incometax Appellate Tribunal dated 11.5.2018 raising following questions for our c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uts covered under such 12 invoices ? (c) Whether the order of the Appellate Tribunal upholding denial of Cenvat credit of Rs. 5,89,667/with interest and also penalty of Rs. 5,89,667/on the appellant and personal penalty of Rs. 50,000/on the 2nd appellant is sustainable and justified in the facts of this case ?" 3. Appellant assessee is a manufacturer of goods. For the duty paid inputs receive....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ailable in the assessee's records or the corresponding records of the supplier. The RTO authorities certified that these were vehicles in the nature of three wheelers such as chhagdo rickshaw and autorickshaw and totally incapable of transporting the quantity of goods stated to have been done. The Tribunal also noted that during the course of investigation, the suppliers' representatives&#....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 5. We do not find the decision of the Tribunal gives rise to the question of law. Entire issue is fact based. The Revenue authorities and the Tribunal concurrently came to the conclusion that the transactions in question were nonexistence. The assessee was not able to establish the actual movement of the goods. When the RTO report strongly suggested that the vehicles in which the goods were st....