TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 761
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... were not found at the addresses given in record of DTO. (c) In respect of 11 invoices involving credit ofRs.4,75,539/-, the vehicles were reported to be non-transport vehicles. (d) In respect of one vehicle, the record of DTO office was reported to have been destroyed involved credit of Rs. 48,713/-. (e) In respect of 18 invoices, no verification was undertaken by the investigating officer and this involved credit of Rs. 7,44,999/- (f) In 9 cases involving credit of Rs. 4,29,233/-, the invoices were issued after 01.10.1999 when according to the owner of the godown of the premises were got vacated from MIL. (g) Invoice issued by Baldev Raj Ram Murti who stated material supplied from other source having credit involved of Rs. 26,954/-. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../- is allowed. 7. The credit of Rs. 4,75,539/- sought to be denied on the ground that the vehicles were reported to be non-transport vehicles during the impugned period. There was newspaper report wherein police complaints have been made that the fake registration are used by the transporters and the said issue has been examined by this Tribunal in the case of Setlco Strips Ltd. and others vide Final Order No.60631-6033/2017 dt.21.03.2017 wherein this Tribunal has observed as under:- "9. In this case, the sole allegation against the appellant is on the basis of the statement of dealer and the vehicles are registered in the name of SDO, Ranjitsagar Dam are not capable for transportation of the goods. In fact, the investigation was conducte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion. I hold hat no investigation has been conducted by the investigating officer. Without investigation, it cannot be concluded that the appellant has not received the goods. Therefore, the credit cannot be denied to the appellant. 10. The credit of Rs. 4,29,233/- sought to be denied on the ground that after 1.10.1999, the manufacturer/suppliers/dealers has vacated the godown for storage of goods. Merely the supplier has vacated the space of storage of the goods in question cannot be reason for denial of credit in the absence of any positive evidence that the dealers have not supplied the goods to the appellant. In fact, the dealer has categorically stated that they have supplied the goods, therefore, the credit is allowed to the appellant....