2019 (11) TMI 555

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s as per the statement of one Sh. Amit Gupta who was investigated by DGCEI. 2. The facts of the case are like that an investigation was conducted with one Sh. Amit Gupta who is having various firms and issued invoices enabling the various manufacturers/buyers to avail inadmissible Cenvat credit without a physically receiving of the goods. It was also stated by Sh. Amit Gupta in his statement that he is having various firms and one of the such firm which is involved in this case is M/s Unnati Alloys Pvt Ltd (M/s UAPL). On the basis of the statement of Sh. Amit Gupta before DGCEI, an investigation was conducted at the end of the appellants on 23.05.2016, wherein the statements of the appellant, namely Sh. Sanjay Gupta was recorded and the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r they have supplied nickel cathodes against the invoices in question. Without proper investigation, it cannot be alleged that the appellant has not received the goods whereas Sh. Sanjay Gupta in his statement categorically mentioned that the goods were received in his factory and verified by their staff, but no staff has been examined to ascertain the fact that whether the appellant has received the inputs or not? In that circumstance, the Cenvat credit cannot be denied. Consequently, no penalty is imposable on the co-appellants. 4. On the other hand, the Ld. A.R. submits that in the statement of Sh. Amit Gupta, it is a fact on record that he has admitted that he floated the firm in the name of M/s Unnati Alloys Pvt Ltd with the name of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d by the Revenue. 7. It is also a fact on record that the Revenue has failed to prove that if the said inputs have not been received in their factory, then from where the inputs have been replaced by the appellants against those invoices. I also take note of the fact that M/s Prime Metalloys Pvt Ltd have specifically mentioned that they have supplied the goods to the appellant. In the absence of any contrary evidence to the above facts, the Cenvat credit cannot be denied to the appellant. Therefore, I hold that the investigation conducted by the DGCEI in this case is not proper and having various infirmities. In thesecircumstances, the benefit of doubt goes to the favour of the appellants. Accordingly, I hold that the Cenvat credit canno....