TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 518
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llants. 2. The brief facts of the case are that M/s Jagruti Resins issued cenvatable invoices to M/s Dhiman Engg without accompanying the goods and passed on the cenvat credit of Rs. 22,50,268/-. It is also issued cenvatable invoices to M/s Shree Sai International and M/s Shree Sai International issued cenvatable invoices to M/s Dhiman Engineering Corporation and passed on the cenvat credit of Rs. 40,515/-. The five vehicle numbers mentioned in the invoices as HR 55,0076, HR 55H 7767, HR 38F 3612, HR 55 5287 and HR 55 C 5022 for transportation of goods. On the basis of various statements, it was alleged that M/s Jagruti Resins has issued cenvatable invoices without accompanying the goods, to avail inadmissible credit either by themselves....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t capable of transportation of goods or not transported the goods. On the basis of that, it was concluded that M/s Jagruti Resins or Shree Sai International has issued invoices without accompanying the goods, therefore, the cenvat credit was denied. In these circumstances, the role the vehicles used in transportation of goods is to be seen. There are five vehicles are involved in this case and in two invoices, no vehicle number is mentioned. Therefore, all are dealt separately. (i) Vehicle number HR/55/0076 used for transportation of goods involved 23 invoices. The reason for denial of cenvat credit is that no entry of movement of vehicle in the diary submitted by the owner of the vehicle, Shri Mahender Singh Yadav. I find that in the ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be said that the vehicle has not transported the goods merely on the basis of the statement of the owner of the vehicle. Further, the diary was also submitted by the transporter after a gap of almost an year and that diary too has been maintained by the driver who was not called for statement. Therefore, diary cannot be the piece of an evidence to allege that goods have not been transported. The another allegation is that the vehicle cannot transport such a huge quantity. I have seen that in one day, several invoices were issued at the same time showing the quantity to be transported in each invoice, if the quantity of all invoices added together, it is not being transported in one go. Although the vehicle is not able to transport the wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roof, the benefit of doubt goes in favour of the appellant and moreover the statement recorded in the year 2010 for the transportation of goods during the period 2008 cannot relied upon when the transporter does not maintain records of transportation of their goods. From his statement, it is also not coming out that whether he was driving the vehicle, some drivers of transportation of goods. Therefore, on the basis of statement of Shri Rajender Rana, the cenvat credit cannot be relied to the appellant. (iii) In vehicle No. HR/55H/7767, I find that the said vehicle was also involved in the case of M/s Sharad Electronics (supra) and in the said case this Tribunal with regard to the vehicle No. HR/55H/7767 observed as under:- "(iii) Anot....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t by his relative who is unable to write appropriately and stated that he has not transported the goods of M/s. Jagruti Raisin Pvt. Ltd. Involvement of this vehicle in transportation the goods of Shri Sai International not of M/s. Jagruti Resin Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, if the said statement is relied upon, the same also support the case of the appellant. Moreover, at the time of involvement of the vehicle in transportation of the goods, Shri Kishan Kumar was not the owner of the vehicle. Therefore, his statement cannot be relied upon and no statement of Shri Rakesh Kumar who was the owner of the vehicle during the impugned period was recorded. Therefore, the allegation for non transportation of the goods by this vehicle is not supported by any ....