2020 (1) TMI 152

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....llant are manufacturers of machineries and spares falling under Tariff Item Numbers 84282020, 84710900, 90330000 and 90280000 of CETA, 1985. During the course of verification of the records of the appellants, the Internal Audit Party of the Department had observed that the appellant had availed CENVAT credit on BOEs not addressed to their registered premises and on photocopies of Bills of Entry which were also not addressed to their registered premises. The Original Authority after following the due process has confirmed the demand of CENVAT credit so availed along with applicable interest and imposed penalty equal to the CENVAT credit. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (A) who rejected the same....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... • Zenith Weaves P Ltd. Vs CCE, Surat, 2004 (177) ELT 251 (Tri. Mumbai). • ITW India Ltd. Vs CCE, Hyderabad, 2016 (46) STR 419 (Tri. Bang.). • CCE, Ghaziabad Vs Majestic Auto Ltd., 2009 (16) STR 685 (Tri. Del.). • CCE, Salem Vs Chemplast Sanmar Ltd., 2007 (5) STR 18 (Tri. Chennai). 4.1. Learned Counsel also submitted that in the impugned order, Commissioner has gone beyond the SCN because in the impugned order, the Commissioner (A) has observed that the appellant has not been able to prove the receipt of the goods and there are no transport documents or GRN which have been submitted by the appellant. He further submitted that in the SCN as well as in the Order-in-Original, receipt of the g....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ntimatewear Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE, Bangalore, 2018 (2) TMI 1172-CESTAT BANGALORE. • Poona Automation Vs CCE, Pune, 2018 (6) TMI 316-CESTAT MUMBAI. • Shasun Chemicals & Drugs Ltd. Vs CCE, 2017 (11) TMI 831-MADRAS HIGH COURT. 5. On the other hand, Learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that the denial of CENVAT credit on account of wrong address of the recipient in the invoice/Bill of Entry cannot be a ground to deny credit in view of various decisions relied upon by the appellant cited supra. The ratios of all these decisions is that when there is no dispute on the receipt of input service and i....